Opinion ID: 2792881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alakhfash’s Withholding of Removal Claim

Text: Section 241(b)(3) of the INA “provides that ‘the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gilaj, 408 F.3d at 289 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). To prevail on a request to withhold removal, an applicant must show a clear probability that he or she would be subject to persecution upon return to the country in question. Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder, 600 F.3d 592, 594 (6th Cir. 2010). that case, the issues to be resolved did not concern whether the applicant was a public figure. Rather, the BIA remanded the case because the IJ had erred by failing to shift the burden to the government to prove that the applicant could safely relocate in Kenya after the IJ determined that the applicant had shown past persecution. Id. at 451. 14 No. 14-3616, Alakhfash v. Holder The IJ relied solely on its asylum finding in denying Alakhfash withholding of removal. As we have held that the events alleged by Alakhfash compel a finding of past persecution, Alakhfash is also entitled to a presumption that “his life or freedom would be threatened in the future” if the BIA finds him to be credible on remand. Haider, 595 F.3d at 283. “That presumption can be rebutted if an IJ finds that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in the proposed country of removal or that the applicant could reasonably be relocated to another part of that country, such that his life or freedom would not be threatened.” Id. at 283–84. On remand, therefore, “[t]he BIA should then consider whether the government can rebut the presumption, and if so, whether [Alakhfash] can prove the likelihood of future threat to life or freedom.” Id. at 288 (internal citation omitted).