Opinion ID: 4221602
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Second Decision and Appeal

Text: On June 28, 2013, the IJ again denied Kamar’s application. He ordered her removal to Jordan, or in the alternative, to Lebanon. The IJ found that Kamar failed to establish a viable social group for relief under her withholding of removal application. Even if Kamar had shown this, the IJ reasoned that there was no evidence that a Catholic had been subject to an honor killing based on an illegitimate birth. He stated that the only instance of Christian honor killings in Jordan in the record was in a United Nations report discussing honor crimes and how they are based on Islamic teachings. Referring to the report, the IJ rationalized, “But it does note that there are instances where Christian families also commit honor crimes. Note it did not say honor 2 However, the Board sustained the IJ’s determination that Kamar was ineligible for voluntary departure. No. 16-3750 Kamar v. Sessions Page 5 killings.” Thus, the IJ concluded that Kamar was unable to show that it was more likely than not that she would be persecuted based on her membership in a group. Additionally, the IJ found the letter from Alias was not credible because it was undated and not the original. Even if it was credible, the IJ concluded that it did not facially indicate that Alias intended to kill Kamar. The IJ determined that this intent was only ambiguously stated in the letter from Kamar’s mother and reasoned that nothing indicated that Alias still harbored this animosity. However, even if Kamar did have a legitimate fear of being killed, the IJ found that Kamar failed to show that her family or the Jordanian government would not protect her because the government had taken steps to protect victims of honor killings. He determined that Kamar also failed to show that she could not relocate. As for the application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, the IJ denied Kamar’s request after finding that Kamar could not show that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured by anyone, let alone somebody covered by the Convention. Kamar again appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board. On January 15, 2015, the Board affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. On April 15, 2015, Kamar filed a motion to reopen with the Board requesting that it reopen proceedings (due to changed country conditions and new law) and remand the case. On June 19, 2015, the Board vacated its January 15, 2015, decision and reinstated Kamar’s original appeal. It denied Kamar’s motion to reopen as moot and ordered further briefing. Kamar’s brief in support of her reinstated appeal included a motion to remand based on changed country conditions.