Court Opinion

ID: 9408895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 00:00:39.929958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.402477
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-61059        Document: 00516820287            Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                 July 13, 2023
                                       No. 20-61059
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Mercy Naah,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A213 327 855

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge:*
         Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from
   the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that
   she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-61059       Document: 00516820287         Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 20-61059

   on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for
   review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for
   proceedings consistent with this opinion. We need not consider her torture
   claim.
                                         I.
            Mercy Naah is an English-speaking citizen of Cameroon. There, she
   earned money by selling fuel on the side of the road. The Cameroonian
   government suspected her of selling fuel to Anglophone separatist fighters
   and arrested her in September 2017. For over a week, Naah was beaten
   severely at least sixteen times with machetes, sticks, batons, whips, and guns.
   The officers threatened to kill her. They tried to obtain information about the
   separatist rebels. Even after her captors ceased beating her, they refused to
   give her adequate food. After six to seven weeks in prison, Naah escaped and
   sought hospital treatment for her injuries.
            Naah presented medical records of her hospital visit. The doctors
   found that Naah had “[s]evere generalized body contusions” and “bruises”
   from the “serious beating all over [her] body.” ROA.256–57. Naah presented
   signs of “trauma, stress, multiple laceration and pressure sores, generalized
   body pains and tenderness,” and “abundant bleeding.” ROA.257. She was
   admitted to the intensive care unit, where she suffered from “progressive
   degeneration of consciousness,” and received sutures, multiple injections, an
   IV, and a transfusion of three whole pints of blood. ROA.257–58.
            After her hospitalization, Naah continued to live in Cameroon for
   eighteen months with her nephew in a nearby region, where she found a new
   job. In June 2019 her sister received a warrant for Naah’s arrest, charging
   Naah with secession. At that point, Naah left the country.
            Naah subsequently arrived in the United States without a valid entry
   document and applied for admission. An asylum officer found that she had

                                          2
Case: 20-61059      Document: 00516820287            Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                      No. 20-61059

   suffered past persecution and had a credible fear of future persecution. The
   Department of Homeland Security charged her with removability under 8
   U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Naah conceded the charge. She then filed an
   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). She claimed fear of persecution due
   to her political opinion. Importantly, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
   concluded that Naah was credible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (“BIA”) did not disturb that finding. Nonetheless, the IJ and BIA concluded
   that Naah was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
   under CAT. Naah timely appealed.
          We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo. See Arulnanthy v.
   Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021). We review the BIA’s factual
   findings, including adverse credibility findings and denials of asylum,
   withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. See Wang v.
   Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 540 (5th Cir. 2009); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131,
   1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports a decision unless the alien
   proves that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder
   could fail to find the petitioner statutorily eligible for relief.” Mirza v.
   Garland, 996 F.3d 747, 752 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). The alien
   does not satisfy this burden where “the evidence could lead a factfinder to
   conclude either way.” Changsheng Du v. Barr, 975 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir.
   2020). But the BIA must address all “key evidence.” Cabrera v. Sessions, 890
   F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also Abdel-Masieh v.
   INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (“While we do not require that the BIA
   address evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis, its decision must
   reflect meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence
   supporting the alien’s claims.” (citation omitted)). Under this standard, we
   will rarely disturb the BIA’s determination that an alien is ineligible for relief.

                                           3
Case: 20-61059      Document: 00516820287          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 20-61059

                                         II.
          We begin with Naah’s asylum claim. To be eligible for asylum under
   8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), Naah must prove that she is a “refugee,” meaning she
   “is unable or unwilling to return to . . . [Cameroon] 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.” Id.
   § 1101(a)(42)(A). And she must establish that her “race, religion, nationality,
   membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at
   least one central reason for persecuting” her. Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Even if
   Naah can demonstrate she is eligible for relief, she’s not automatically
   entitled to asylum. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 396 (5th Cir. 2020). The
   decision to grant asylum falls squarely within the Attorney General’s
   discretion and is “conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an
   abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D).
          We find that Naah has met her burden of proof to show that she is
   eligible for asylum because she has suffered past persecution on account of
   her political opinion. First, Naah can prove that she suffered past
   persecution. She not only presented her credible testimony, but she also
   provided medical records. This evidence unequivocally demonstrates that
   Naah was severely beaten at least sixteen times while she was imprisoned. Cf.
   Gjetani, 968 F.3d at 399 (compiling cases where an alien was only assaulted
   once or twice). Her persecutors used all types of weapons—machetes,
   batons, sticks, whips, and guns. And Naah was beaten so severely that she
   was still bleeding when she finally escaped the prison and made it to the
   hospital several weeks later. Her pain was so intense and her blood loss so
   extreme that she lost consciousness multiple times in the hospital, had to be
   admitted to the intensive care unit, and had to receive a blood transfusion of
   three pints of blood.

                                          4
Case: 20-61059      Document: 00516820287          Page: 5   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                    No. 20-61059

          Second, Naah can demonstrate that she suffered persecution “on
   account of” her “political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To
   demonstrate that nexus, Naah must prove “not just that the persecutor was
   motivated in some measure by [her] actual or imputed political belief, but
   that the political belief was ‘one central reason’ for the persecution.”
   Changsheng Du, 975 F.3d at 447 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)); see also
   Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2018). “The relevant question
   is the motivation of the persecutor.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d
   341, 351 (5th Cir. 2002). Naah must present evidence that the persecutors
   knew of her political opinion and persecuted her “because of it.” Ibid. A
   political opinion that is merely “incidental, tangential, or subordinate to the
   persecutor’s motivation will not suffice.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d
   219, 231 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Naah’s persecutors imprisoned and beat her because of her political
   opinion. Naah presented (1) her credible testimony about her political beliefs
   and the accusations of officers contemporaneous to her arrest and torture,
   (2) human rights reports of violence against Anglophones in Cameroon, and
   (3) an arrest warrant charging her with secession. Taken together, this
   evidence establishes that her “political belief” was “one central reason” for
   the persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Naah is an Anglophone
   Cameroonian and a sympathizer to the plight of Anglophones. In recent
   years, the Cameroonian government has persecuted, attacked, and killed
   Anglophones, leading Anglophone separatists to respond with violence.
   Naah was a victim of such government persecution; the Cameroonian
   military knew she was an Anglophone and targeted her upon suspecting that
   she was engaging in separatist activities by selling fuel to separatist groups.
   During her arrest, detention, and beating, Naah’s persecutors accused her of
   being an “Anglophone causing problems in the country” and “supplying
   [fuel] to Southern Cameroonian fighters.” ROA.157, 272–73. And her arrest

                                          5
Case: 20-61059      Document: 00516820287           Page: 6     Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 20-61059

   warrant charges her with “secession.” ROA.250. It’s clear that the military
   officers “imputed [a] political belief” to her, and this political belief was one
   central reason behind her persecution. Changsheng Du, 975 F.3d at 447.
   Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s
   determination and Naah is eligible for asylum.
          We hasten to add that this is one of those extremely rare cases where
   we depart from the BIA’s eligibility decision. We only do so in these
   circumstances because “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact
   finder could fail to find [Naah] statutorily eligible for relief.” Mirza, 996 F.3d
   at 752 (quotation omitted).
                                          III.
          Next, we evaluate Naah’s withholding of removal claim. She qualifies
   “if the Attorney General decides that [her] life or freedom would be
   threatened in [Cameroon] because of [her] race, religion, nationality,
   membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
   § 1231(b)(3)(A). A finding of “past persecution” creates a “presumption”
   that “the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the
   country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). But importantly:
          This presumption may be rebutted if an asylum officer or
          immigration judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence:
          (A) There has been a fundamental change in circumstances
          such that the applicant’s life or freedom would not be
          threatened on account of any of the five grounds mentioned in
          this paragraph upon the applicant’s removal to that country; or
          (B) The applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life
          or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed
          country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would
          be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.

                                           6
Case: 20-61059      Document: 00516820287             Page: 7   Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                       No. 20-61059

   Ibid. Because we find that Naah’s past persecution renders her eligible for
   asylum, we remand her withholding of removal claim so that the IJ may
   determine in the first instance whether the presumption of future
   persecution has been rebutted.
                                           IV.
          Finally, Naah seeks CAT relief. It is unclear whether the BIA
   considered all the relevant evidence regarding country conditions in
   Cameroon. See Emmanuel-Tata v. Garland, 2022 WL 126982, at *2–3 (5th
   Cir. Jan. 12, 2022) (remanding similar CAT claim involving Cameroonian
   government’s mistreatment of Anglophones to allow BIA to consider
   relevant country-condition evidence). But we need not decide the CAT claim
   given our disposition of Naah’s claims for asylum and withholding of
   removal. If Naah ultimately prevails on her non-CAT claims, she “can be
   afforded effective relief by facilitation of [her] return [to the United States],
   along with restoration of the immigration status [she] had upon removal.”
   Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). That would obviously moot her
   need for CAT relief. And if the BIA denies relief on remand, Naah can seek
   relief from that order, and we can consider the CAT question at that time.
   Cf. Ramirez-Ortez v. Barr, 782 F. App’x 318, 321 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
                                   *        *         *
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED.

                                            7