Court Opinion

ID: 9926407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 18:01:09.6278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:45.815812
License: Public Domain

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
                                       File Name: 24a0016p.06

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                             ┐
 KINGSLEY OWUSU,
                                                             │
                                             Petitioner,     │
                                                              >        No. 23-3350
                                                             │
        v.                                                   │
                                                             │
 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,                       │
                                           Respondent.       │
                                                             ┘

                On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
                                     No. A 206 677 811.

                              Decided and Filed: January 24, 2024

                  Before: GIBBONS, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

                                      _________________

                                            COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Charles E. Smith, Jr., Columbus, Ohio, for Petitioner. Stephen Finn, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
                                      _________________

                                             OPINION
                                      _________________

       THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Kingsley Owusu seeks asylum and withholding of removal.
Because he fails to show state-sanctioned persecution, we deny his petition.

                                                   I.

       Before entering the United States, Kingsley Owusu lived in Ghana. During 2012 and
2013, Owusu experienced three violent incidents.
 No. 23-3350                                   Owusu v. Garland                                      Page 2

        The first incident occurred as Owusu went door-to-door with a crowd to promote the
New Patriot Party (NPP) for an upcoming election. As the crowd attempted to enter one house
to campaign, Mohamod, a man from the opposing National Democratic Congress party (NDC),
denied the crowd entry.        An argument ensued, during which one NPP member, Kwadwo
Asamoah, shot Mohamod in the knee.               Other NDC members soon arrived on scene and
threatened to avenge the shooting.

        Several months later, Owusu and Asamoah were outside when two individuals
approached and pointed guns at them. One of the assailants shot Asamoah. Owusu then fled as
the individuals began shooting indiscriminately. Additional assailants arrived and attacked
Asamoah with machetes. He died from his injuries. Police arrested nineteen suspects but
ultimately released them without filing charges. For his part, Owusu never contacted the police
about the incident.

        Later that year, two men with machetes drove toward Owusu as he was walking outside.
Owusu ran, hiding at a nearby farm. Eventually, the men gave up looking for him. But as the
men left, they resolved to kill Owusu one day. As before, Owusu didn’t tell the police about this
episode.

        Owusu then fled to the United States. He sought asylum and withholding of removal. 1
An immigration judge found that (1) Owusu failed to show that the Ghanaian government is
unwilling or unable to address the harm he faced from private actors, (2) Owusu’s three violent
incidents didn’t amount to past persecution, (3) Owusu couldn’t establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution, and (4) even if Owusu faced persecution, Owusu could avoid it by relocating
to a different part of Ghana. Based on these findings, the judge denied asylum and withholding.

        Owusu appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board dismissed the appeal,
agreeing with the immigration judge’s four findings.               Additionally, the Board found that
Owusu’s troubles in Ghana stemmed from Asamoah’s assault of Mohamod, not Owusu’s

        1Owusu also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, which the immigration judge denied and
the Board affirmed. Because Owusu didn’t brief this claim before us, we don’t address it. See Ramos Rafael v.
Garland, 15 F.4th 797, 800 (6th Cir. 2021).
 No. 23-3350                              Owusu v. Garland                               Page 3

political opinions or party membership. And as the Board noted, persecution stemming from a
personal grudge doesn’t qualify for asylum or withholding.

       Owusu now petitions this court for review.

                                                II.

       To be eligible for asylum or withholding, Owusu must show either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b). And to demonstrate “persecution,” Owusu must show state action.            Ortiz v.
Garland, 6 F.4th 685, 686–87 (6th Cir. 2021). He may do this in two ways. First, he can show that
his persecutor is a state actor. Id. Or, he can show the Ghanaian government has a “repeated and
demonstrated inability” to protect him from private persecutors. Id. at 690.

       The Board of Immigration Appeals found that Owusu failed to show state action. Our
review of that factual finding is “highly deferential,” so we won’t disturb the Board’s finding
unless the evidence “compels” a different result. Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728, 732 (6th Cir.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Owusu fails to meet this burden.

       At the outset, Owusu doesn’t allege that his previous assailants were government actors.
Instead, he tries to show state action by arguing (1) the Ghanaian police will persecute him as a
member of the NPP, and (2) the police won’t protect him from NDC persecution. Owusu offers
three pieces of evidence, none of which is compelling.

       First, Owusu cites an article describing how Ghanaian police killed a group of seven
individuals, at least three of whom were NPP members. Owusu considers this proof that the
police will either persecute him or acquiesce in NDC persecution. But Owusu reads too much
into the article. For one, the seven individuals appear to have been members of a “vigilante
group” who were actively shooting at the police when they were killed. AR. 262. For another, it
appears the police had confused the group with an eight-man gang that had recently killed a
police officer. The fact police returned fire against a group of suspected murderers doesn’t tell
us much about Owusu’s future safety in Ghana. And it certainly doesn’t compel us to conclude
that police either persecute NPP members or are unwilling to protect them.
 No. 23-3350                                     Owusu v. Garland                                        Page 4

          Second, Owusu alleges the police “turned a blind eye” to Asamoah’s murder. Pet’r Br.
18. But his evidence on this point is unconvincing. To start, Owusu contradicts himself. At one
point, he testified that the police “did nothing” in response to the shooting. AR. 164. In other
places, he claims police performed an investigation, gathered enough evidence to press charges,
but nonetheless released all the suspects. Given these contradictions, Owusu’s testimony does
not establish that the Board failed to make a “substantially reasonable” finding. Klawitter v.
I.N.S., 970 F.2d 149, 151 (6th Cir. 1992). Moreover, to the extent police should have done more,
Owusu might be partially to blame. He never contacted police about the murder, despite
claiming to be an eyewitness.2 Cf. Ortiz, 6 F.4th at 687. That makes it difficult to gauge
anything about the police’s ability or willingness to protect him. See Palucho v. Garland,
49 F.4th 532, 537 (6th Cir. 2022) (“[A]n immigrant’s failure to report crimes to the police will
make it more difficult to show that the government was unable or unwilling to control the
criminals.”). Accordingly, the police’s response to Asamoah’s murder does little to show state
action.

          Lastly, Owusu claims the Ghanaian police “don’t like” NPP members and have been
killing them “for a very long time.” AR. 150–51. But his evidence is scant. Aside from the
news article and Asamoah incident, Owusu’s only example of anti-NPP behavior is his claim
that police dumped acid on a man’s face. Owusu offers no additional details or evidence about
this incident, except for a vague allegation that it “came as a result of a political issue involving
the NPP.” AR. 151. That’s not enough to disturb the Board’s decision.

          Moreover, Owusu’s own allegations about the police’s anti-NPP bias are equivocal.
Before this court, he claims that the police are “notorious[ly]” pro-NDC. Pet’r Br. 18. But in the
testimony he cites to support that assertion, Owusu acknowledged he “[doesn’t] know” if the
police favor any political parties. AR. 151.

          Taken together, Owusu’s evidence doesn’t compel us to conclude that the police
persecuted him in the past or will persecute him in the future. Nor does it prove that police are

          2Below, Owusu claimed he’d have been “hunted” if he said anything to the police.      AR. 4, 163. But
Owusu didn’t cite any evidence supporting this claim. Nor did he allege that the police would hunt him, rather than
private parties.
 No. 23-3350                                Owusu v. Garland                             Page 5

unable or unwilling to protect Owusu from private persecution. Thus, Owusu fails to establish
state action. And without state action, Owusu is ineligible for asylum or removal withholding.

                                        *        *     *

       The petition for review is denied.