Court Opinion

ID: 9379106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 18:00:28.931895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.929905
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60099         Document: 00516675970             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                 March 14, 2023
                                        No. 22-60099
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Abdikarim Hassan Ahmed,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A213 596 594

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Abdikarim Hassan Ahmed unsuccessfully applied for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture. In light of two alleged errors, he asks us to reverse the Board of
   Immigration Appeal’s decision and remand for further proceedings. We deny
   Ahmed’s first claim on the merits and dismiss his second for lack of
   jurisdiction.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60099     Document: 00516675970          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                   No. 22-60099

                                         I.
          Ahmed—a native and citizen of Somalia—entered the United States
   in March of 2021. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with
   removability for seeking admission without a valid entry document, 8 U.S.C.
   § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and for being present in the United States without
   admission or parole, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ahmed admitted both
   charges. He then applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the
   Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and for relief under the
   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
          Ahmed told the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that he had been targeted
   by al-Shabaab (a fundamentalist Islamic group that opposes Somalia’s
   western-backed government) because of his imputed “pro-Somali
   government” or “anti-Islamic” political opinion and his “moderate
   Muslim” religion. Specifically, Ahmed contended that al-Shabaab
   threatened to kill him in 2008 for resisting their recruitment efforts and for
   associating with pro-government African Union Mission in Somalia
   (“AMISOM”) soldiers. He relocated to Kenya later that year before
   returning to Somalia in 2016. After Ahmed opened a small grocery store in
   2016, al-Shabaab demanded money from him between 2016 and 2020,
   threatened to kill him for refusing their demands and reporting them to the
   police, and hit him with the butt of a rifle in February 2020. Ahmed feared
   that if he returned to Somalia, al-Shabaab would target him for his past
   resistance and because “individuals with known connections to the United
   States” are viewed as “enemies of their cause, apostates, or spies.”
          The IJ denied all of Ahmed’s claims. Regarding asylum and
   withholding of removal, the IJ found that Ahmed failed to show harm rising
   to the level of past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, a
   nexus between the harm suffered or feared and his religion or imputed

                                         2
Case: 22-60099      Document: 00516675970         Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                   No. 22-60099

   political opinion, and the Somali government’s unwillingness or inability to
   protect him. As to lack of nexus, the IJ explained that Ahmed’s resistance to
   al-Shabaab’s recruitment and extortion efforts is not a cognizable political
   opinion, nor is the perception that Ahmed had become westernized during
   his brief stint in the United States. The IJ further held that Ahmed failed to
   establish a likelihood of torture with sufficient state involvement to sustain
   his CAT claim.
           Ahmed appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or
   “the Board”). He challenged the IJ’s findings regarding his past and feared
   future persecution, al-Shabaab’s motivations, and the Somali government’s
   ability to protect him. Ahmed did not reassert his CAT claim. On the nexus
   issue, Ahmed contended that al-Shabaab imputed to him “a pro-Somali
   government or an anti-Islamic opinion” because he refused to join them or
   pay them off and because they believed he was working for the government.
   In challenging the IJ’s conclusion that he was not targeted for his imputed
   political opinion, Ahmed asserted that al-Shabaab’s accusation, that he was
   taking information about al-Shabaab to the government, showed that al-
   Shabaab’s persecution of him was at least partially politically motivated.
   Ahmed also reupped his argument that as a returnee from the United States,
   he would be viewed as an enemy of al-Shabaab and face an elevated risk of
   harm.
           The BIA dismissed Ahmed’s appeal. The BIA found Ahmed’s CAT
   claim forfeited. As for asylum and withholding, the Board affirmed the IJ’s
   denial because Ahmed “ha[d] not demonstrated that his religion or an
   imputed political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for his
   persecution.” Rather, the BIA found that al-Shabaab targeted him to recruit
   and extort him—citing to record evidence that Ahmed was not targeted until
   after he refused to join the group or pay extortion as well as to Ahmed’s
   testimony that he would have been safe had he paid the extortion. The BIA

                                         3
Case: 22-60099        Document: 00516675970             Page: 4      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                        No. 22-60099

   further noted that “[a]l-Shabaab recruited boys and young men generally,
   demanded payment from other business owners in the area, and regularly
   attacked civilians.” Ahmed failed to demonstrate that any of this
   recruitment, extortion, and violence was motivated by the victims’ religious
   or political beliefs as opposed to al-Shabaab’s beliefs. The BIA added that
   “the mere existence of a generalized political or religious motive underlying
   [a]l-Shabaab’s recruitment and extortion efforts, without more, is inadequate
   to establish the requisite nexus to a protected ground.” Because its lack-of-
   nexus finding was dispositive, the BIA did not address other elements of the
   asylum and withholding claims.
           Ahmed did not file a motion to reconsider with the BIA.
                                              II.
           Ahmed petitions this court for review on two grounds. † First, he
   claims the BIA disregarded substantial evidence of a protected nexus
   between al-Shabaab’s threats and his imputed political opinion. Second,
   Ahmed contends the BIA erred by ignoring his future persecution argument.
           But before we can consider the merits of these claims, we must
   consider our jurisdiction. First we (A) consider our jurisdiction. Then we
   (B) consider the merits of Ahmed’s only exhausted claim.
                                              A.
           Start with exhaustion. The INA requires that “[a] court may review a
   final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
   remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). In removal

           †
            Ahmed only challenges the BIA’s decision regarding asylum and withholding of
   removal. Accordingly, he has abandoned any claim under the CAT. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
   324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

                                              4
Case: 22-60099      Document: 00516675970          Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60099

   proceedings, aliens are afforded one motion for reconsideration as of right.
   8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). So a petitioner must take advantage of that
   administrative remedy to overcome § 1252(d)(1)’s “jurisdictional bar.”
   Avelar-Olivia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020). Of course, an alien
   need not file a motion for reconsideration if his petition for review raises a
   claim that has already been squarely addressed and rejected by the BIA. See,
   e.g., Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 2009). In other words, “a
   petitioner exhausts a claim by presenting it to the BIA—whether on appeal
   or on a motion to reconsider.” Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353,
   360 (5th Cir. 2022); see also Kumar v. Garland, 52 F.4th 957, 965 (5th Cir.
   2022) (“[T]he petitioner must raise, present, or mention an issue to the BIA,
   putting the BIA on notice of his claim before raising it in this court. The
   petitioner may put the BIA on notice either in his brief on appeal to the BIA
   or in a motion to reconsider.” (quotation omitted)).
          Under this framework, we must consider exhaustion (and hence
   jurisdiction) on a claim-by-claim basis. See Ayala-Chapa v. Garland, No. 21-
   60039, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2023). Ahmed’s first claim is properly
   before us, but his second claim is not.
          Ahmed’s first argument is that he was persecuted on account of his
   contacts with the pro-government AMISOM soldiers. Ahmed made the
   same argument in his appeal brief before the BIA where he asserted that the
   IJ erroneously concluded Ahmed was not targeted for his imputed political
   opinion. Because Ahmed “raised the same claim[] to the Board on appeal
   from the I.J., the Board had a chance to address [it], so the[] [claim is]
   exhausted.” Martinez-Guevara, 27 F.4th at 360; see also Omari, 562 F.3d at
   320 (“[I]f a party disagrees with the BIA’s resolution of an issue previously
   raised before the BIA, there is no need to reargue this issue in a motion for
   reconsideration.”); Kumar, 52 F.4th at 969 (concluding that a petitioner’s
   argument before the BIA that the IJ mischaracterized certain evidence was

                                             5
Case: 22-60099      Document: 00516675970          Page: 6     Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                    No. 22-60099

   sufficient to exhaust his argument that the BIA did the same). We therefore
   have jurisdiction over this claim.
          Ahmed’s second claim is that the BIA erred by only addressing the
   past-persecution issue and failing to consider whether he has a well-founded
   fear of future persecution. Such failure-to-consider arguments are precisely
   the sort our precedent requires aliens to exhaust in a motion to reconsider.
   See Avelar-Olivia, 954 F.3d at 766; Omari, 562 F.3d at 320 (“[W]here the
   BIA’s decision itself results in a new issue,” the “party must first bring it to
   the BIA’s attention through a motion for reconsideration.”); Martinez-
   Guevara, 27 F.4th at 360 (same); Kumar, 52 F.4th at 965–66 (same).
   Ahmed’s failure to seek reconsideration means he failed to exhaust this
   claim, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it.
                                         B.
          Turning to the merits, Ahmed argues that the BIA failed to consider
   evidence that he was persecuted on account of his interactions with
   AMISOM. We disagree. The Board expressly considered Ahmed’s
   testimony about AMISOM when it held that al-Shabaab threatened Ahmed
   because he resisted their recruitment and extortion—not because of
   Ahmed’s “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
   group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (asylum); accord
   8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of removal).
          We review the BIA’s determination that Ahmed is not eligible for
   asylum or withholding of removal for “substantial evidence.” Zhang v.
   Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this highly deferential
   standard, we need only make sure that the BIA’s decision is “based upon the
   evidence presented” and is “substantially reasonable.” Sharma v. Holder,
   729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). “In other words, the
   alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable

                                          6
Case: 22-60099     Document: 00516675970          Page: 7   Date Filed: 03/14/2023

                                   No. 22-60099

   factfinder could conclude against it.” Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.
   1994); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact
   are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
   conclude to the contrary.”).
          The BIA’s dismissal of Ahmed’s asylum and withholding of removal
   claims is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA began its analysis by
   accurately articulating Ahmed’s general claim: “The respondent fears harm
   by members of [a]l-Shabaab based on his religion and imputed political
   opinion.” The BIA proceeded to summarize the series of interactions Ahmed
   had with al-Shabaab in 2008 and from 2016 to 2020. After citing to Ahmed’s
   testimony about those interactions, the Board observed that al-Shabaab only
   threated Ahmed after he rebuffed their recruitment efforts and refused their
   extortion demands. The BIA then concluded that “members of [a]l-Shabaab
   were motivated to target the respondent in order to recruit and extort him,
   rather than to persecute him on account of a protected ground.”
         True, Ahmed testified that while al-Shabaab threatened him because
   he resisted their recruitment and extortion, they also threatened him because
   of his contact with pro-government AMISOM soldiers. But the BIA cited this
   exact part of Ahmed’s testimony and viewed it as part of al-Shabaab’s
   ongoing efforts to recruit Ahmed, not freestanding political or religious
   persecution. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The
   Board does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.” (quotation
   omitted)). That “is a reasonable interpretation of the record” and is
   “therefore supported by substantial evidence.” Chun, 40 F.3d at 79.
         DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

                                         7