Opinion ID: 793247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to Sall's Stay in Senegal

Text: 18 We conclude that the IJ's determination that Sall was firmly resettled in Senegal was not supported by substantial evidence. First, the IJ appears to have misstated the burden of proof, having stated that an applicant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has not been firmly resettled. This is not accurate. It is true that once the government establishes a prima facie case of firm resettlement, an applicant bears the burden of showing that an exception applies and that a finding of firm resettlement is inappropriate in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.15(a)-(b) (enumerating exceptions). The initial burden, however, lies on the government. See Salazar, 359 F.3d at 50 (The case law treats this showing made by the government as creating a rebuttable presumption ....). 6 This error alone would fatally weaken the IJ's finding of firm resettlement absent convincing evidence that the IJ's finding would have been identical absent the error-infected portions of her decision. See Xiao Ji Chen v. DOJ, 434 F.3d 144, 161 (2d Cir.2006) (concluding in substantial evidence review that despite errors—considered in the context of the IJ's entire analysis—we can state with confidence that the IJ would adhere to his decision were the petition remanded). 19 Here, however, sufficient additional error tarnishes the IJ's decision as to require remand. For example, the IJ found Sall not to be credible in part because he introduced into evidence a letter from a Senegal Red Cross official in Saint-Louis, a Senegal city purportedly not [in] a region in which the refugee camp is located. During his testimony, Sall stated that the official lived in Saint-Louis but visited the Thilogne refugee camp frequently because he was the regional Red Cross president. Asked what region Thilogne was in, Sall answered the region of the Fleue. 7 Saint-Louis is the capital of the Saint-Louis region. While Sall's testimony certainly would allow a layman to believe that Thilogne is not in the region of Saint-Louis 8 —and therefore that it makes little sense for a resident of the city of Saint-Louis to have responsibility for a camp in Thilogne—it turns out that Senegal renamed its Fleuve region Saint-Louis in 1984. 9 Senegal's regions are now all named for their capital cities. 10 20 We note also that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a finding of firm resettlement in a similar case. See Diallo, 381 F.3d at 695-96 (concluding that, even under totality of the circumstances test, Mauritanian petitioner was not firmly resettled in Senegal after spending four years there performing itinerant work). We agree with the Court in that case that the mere passage of four years, standing alone, does not constitute firm resettlement. Id. at 696. On remand, the IJ should consider the totality of the circumstances, 11 including whether Sall intended to settle in Senegal when he arrived there, whether he has family ties there, whether he has business or property connections that connote permanence, and whether he enjoyed the legal rights—such as the right to work and to enter and leave the country at will—that permanently settled persons can expect to have. 12 Of particular importance to this inquiry is whether he received an actual offer of permanent resident status.