Abdalla v. Sessions, 690 F. App'x 723

Background

Petitioner Iman Abdalla, an Egyptian national and Coptic Christian, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on past harms in Egypt (robberies, sexual harassment, abductions, forced or attempted forced conversions of family members, and incidents with cab/bus drivers).
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief in decisions issued in 2008 and 2012; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed; the agency reopened proceedings and entered a new final order in 2014.
The IJ noted Abdalla’s claims were “very likely exaggerated” but did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding or specify which allegations lacked support from country‑conditions evidence.
The agency analyzed some incidents (cab/bus drivers) but failed to address the other alleged harms in aggregate when assessing past persecution.
The Second Circuit granted review, found the agency’s past‑persecution analysis inadequate for failing to consider cumulative harm, and remanded for further proceedings, allowing supplementation of current country‑conditions evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency erred by failing to consider alleged harms in aggregate when assessing past persecution	Abdalla: agency omitted significant incidents (robberies, sexual harassment, abductions, forced conversions) and must assess cumulative effect	Government: agency concluded no nexus for some incidents and questioned veracity of claims	Court: Vacated and remanded — agency failed to aggregate events and explain why claims were "likely exaggerated" without an adverse credibility finding
Whether the IJ made an adverse credibility determination sufficient to deny relief	Abdalla: IJ’s comment was insufficient; no explicit adverse credibility finding identifying which allegations were disbelieved	Government: IJ’s skepticism supports denial	Court: IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination or identify contradictions; explanation was insufficient for meaningful review
Effect of any error on future‑fear analysis and burden allocation	Abdalla: past persecution would trigger presumption of well‑founded fear; remand needed to determine future fear and burden	Government: even without past persecution, can contest future fear	Court: Because past persecution analysis was flawed, remand required; court did not decide who bears burden on independent future fear
Whether the record should be updated on remand	Abdalla: significant time passed; parties should be allowed to update country‑conditions evidence and testimony	Government: (implicitly) agency may rely on existing record	Court: Parties should be permitted to update country‑conditions evidence and relevant testimony on remand

Key Cases Cited

Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed BIA and IJ decisions for completeness)
Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional principles where proceedings reopened)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review in immigration appeals)
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing harassment from persecution)
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (past persecution may include non‑life‑threatening violence; need adequate analysis)
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (error to assess events in isolation without considering cumulative effect)
Tian‑Yong Chen v. U.S. INS, 359 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2004) (remand appropriate when agency omits potentially significant facts)
Secaida‑Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003) (permit supplementation of record with current country‑conditions evidence on remand)
Kyaw Zwar Tun v. U.S. INS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006) (allocation of burden regarding well‑founded fear when past persecution is at issue)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing statutory changes; procedural context for record supplementation)