27 I. & N. Dec. 303
BIA2018Background
- Respondent, a Salvadoran national, was kidnapped by guerrillas in 1990 and forced to undergo weapons training and perform cooking, cleaning, and laundry for them. She later entered the U.S. and faced removal proceedings after seeking admission in 2004.
- Initially an Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal; the BIA reversed in 2014, finding the respondent inadmissible for having received military-type training from a terrorist organization and remanding for consideration of other relief.
- On remand the respondent applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection; the IJ denied asylum/withholding under the statutory "material support" bar but granted CAT deferral. DHS appealed the CAT grant; respondent cross-appealed the denial of asylum/withholding.
- Central factual question: whether the respondent’s coerced menial labor (cooking, cleaning, washing clothes) in 1990 constituted "material support" to a terrorist organization.
- The BIA majority held that "material support" has no quantitative requirement and includes acts that have a logical and reasonably foreseeable tendency to promote, sustain, or maintain a terrorist organization, even if only to a de minimis degree, and thus affirmed that the respondent provided material support.
- The BIA remanded the CAT deferral determination to the IJ for fuller factual findings and legal analysis; a separate member concurred in the remand but dissented from the material-support holding.
Issues
| Issue | Applicant's Argument | DHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "material support" requires a quantitative threshold | Respondent: assistance was de minimis and not "material" | DHS: statute covers even minimal assistance; waiver exists for insignificant cases | Held: No quantitative requirement; de minimis aid can be "material" if it reasonably tends to promote/sustain the group |
| Whether the type of support must be of certain kinds listed in statute | Respondent: menial services (cooking/cleaning) are not of same class as listed items | DHS: statute examples are illustrative; list not exhaustive | Held: Type need not be limited to enumerated examples; material support defined relationally by logical connection to organization’s aims |
| Whether duress excuses material support bar applicability | Respondent: duress should exempt coerced support | DHS: no duress exception; waiver is separate administrative remedy | Held: No implied duress exception in the statutory bar (per prior BIA precedent) |
| Adequacy of IJ's CAT deferral findings | Respondent: IJ found deferral warranted | DHS: IJ failed to make sufficient factual/legal findings | Held: Remanded for further fact-finding and legal analysis on CAT claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (upholding criminal material-support prohibition and noting even peaceful support can further terrorism)
- Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2002) ("material" relates to type of aid, not its magnitude)
- Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2004) (broad conception of material support; logical connection test)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (discussing duress as negating culpability in criminal context)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (statutory interpretation principle against rendering terms superfluous)