Opinion ID: 2982433
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eligibility for Relief

Text: Abdramane bears the burden of proving eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(a), 1208.16(b) (2013). A refugee is a person unable or unwilling to return to her country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Kante v. Holder, 634 F.3d 321, 325 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). “The persecution must be by the government, or persons the government is unwilling or unable to control.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004)). -9- No. 12-3199 Abdramane v. Holder “If past persecution is established, a rebuttable presumption arises that the applicant has a well-founded fear of future persecution, shifting the burden to the government to rebut the presumption by establishing that conditions in the applicant’s home country have changed to such an extent that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution should she return.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)). Alternatively, an applicant can demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing that she has a genuine fear and that a reasonable person in her circumstances would fear persecution on account of a statutorilyprotected ground if she returned to her native country. Id. The applicant’s well-founded fear must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Diallo v. Muskasey, 268 F. App’x 373, 377 (6th Cir. 2008); Pilica, 388 F.3d at 950; see also Kante, 634 F.3d at 325; Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615, 620–21 (6th Cir.1994). “An applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145, 1154 (6th Cir. 2010). A request for asylum is considered a request for withholding of removal as well. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 420 n.13 (1984). Unlike the discretionary relief of asylum, a grant of withholding of removal is mandatory if an applicant proves that her “life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Khalili, 557 F.3d at 435 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(a)). An applicant seeking withholding of removal faces a more stringent burden than what is required on a claim for asylum and must demonstrate that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the -10- No. 12-3199 Abdramane v. Holder country of removal. Khalili, 557 F.3d at 435–36 (citing Singh, 398 F.3d at 401). Where an alien fails to satisfy eligibility for asylum, she also necessarily fails to satisfy the higher burden of withholding of removal. See Stevic, 467 U.S. at 425. The IJ held that because Abdramane had not met her burden of establishing past persecution, she was not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and her subjective fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. AR 84–85. The IJ explained that Abdramane never reported any of the alleged threats of FGM to the police, never sought their protection, and failed to show that authorities in Niger would not protect her against FGM. AR 81–85. The IJ further noted that Abdramane only knew of two individuals subjected to FGM, and that neither she nor her mother and sister were circumcised. AR 81–83. The BIA affirmed the decision, ruling that even assuming Abdramane was credible, she failed to satisfy her burden of proving eligibility for asylum and the higher burden for withholding of removal. AR 2.7 Abdramane does not allege past persecution. She argues that she would suffer FGM by her parents and ethnic group if she returned to Niger. However, Abdramane fails to show an objective fear that the authorities in Niger will be unable or unwilling to prevent her parents from subjecting her to FGM or that she cannot reasonably relocate to a part of Niger where she will be safe from FGM. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Abdramane failed to establish a claim for asylum or withholding of removal. Abdramane claims that her parents will subject her to FGM. When an asylum claim focuses on non-governmental conduct, its fate depends on some showing either that the alleged persecutors are aligned with the government or that the 7 The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s conclusion. -11- No. 12-3199 Abdramane v. Holder government is unwilling or unable to control them. Khalili, 557 F.3d at 436. Abdramane testified that she never went to the authorities in Niger to seek protection from FGM and acknowledged that the authorities have arrested persons for practicing FGM. Although Abdramane testified that FGM is an ongoing problem in Niger, and the State Department’s Country Reports indicate that FGM is an ongoing problem among members of the Zarma tribe, the reports also document a significant decrease in the percentage of girls subject to FGM in Niger, from 5 percent to 2.6 percent as of 2009, and that perpetrators of FGM are being prosecuted by the government. Based on this record, we cannot conclude that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to find that the government of Niger was unwilling or unable to protect Abdramane. See id. (finding petitioner could not establish that the government was unwilling or unable to control family members and protect him from honor killings where State Department Country Report indicated that Jordanian authorities prosecuted all fifteen honor crimes reported in 2004 and placed potential victims in protective custody); Ralios Morente v. Holder, 401 F. App’x 17, 24 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding Morente did not demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution where he did not report threats to police and State Department Country Report did not directly indicate that the government would be unable or unwilling to control former guerilla members Morente feared, and instead reported that the government regularly provided security for human rights activists); compare Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634, 640 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that nine-year-old child established she was a refugee under the Act where she was from a country where the practice of FGM was “nearly universal,” with 90% of females having been subjected to some form of it, noting that even if her parents did not practice FGM, she would not be able to prevent a future husband or his relatives from demanding that it -12- No. 12-3199 Abdramane v. Holder be done). Here, there is little, if any, evidence supporting that the government would be unwilling or unable to protect Abdramane from harm. See Khalili, 557 F.3d at 436. Further, because Abdramane has not established past persecution and does not argue that the persecution is by the government or government-sponsored, she bears the burden of establishing that it is not reasonable for her to relocate. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see Ghanim v. Holder, 425 F. App’x 463, 467–68 (6th Cir. 2011). Abdramane has failed to show that she could not reasonably relocate in Niger where she would be safe from her parents and other members of her tribe. See Maritim v. Holder, 507 F. App’x 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding applicant failed to show fear of future persecution where, although 48% of women in her father’s tribe were subjected to FGM, she failed to establish that relocation within Kenya was not reasonable, the Kenyan government did not support FGM, her mother and sisters were never subjected to FGM, and her parents opposed the practice); Cruz-Samayoa, 607 F.3d at 1154 (denying asylum and withholding of removal where, although applicants might face some risk of future harm at the hands of the father’s enemies as a result of his political activism, they failed to show they could not reasonably relocate outside their small town in Guatemala where they would be safe); Kian Hau Ng v. Holder, 447 F. App’x 655, 658 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that applicant failed to show future persecution where he could relocate to other regions of Indonesia, and there was no evidence that the persecution he allegedly feared existed nationwide). Since Abdramane cannot satisfy the standard for asylum, it follows she cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Ralios Morente, 401 F. App’x at 24 (citing Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 677 (6th Cir. 2008)). We DENY Abdramane’s petition for review. -13-