Abdirahman Moallin v. William P. Barr, 980 F.3d 1207

Petitioner Abdirahman Ali Moallin, a Somali native admitted as a refugee in 1995 and LPR in 1996, accrued seven criminal convictions (2000–2004), prompting DHS to seek removal; the IJ ordered removal in 2004.
In 2017 the IJ granted Moallin’s motion to reopen; Moallin sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming a likelihood of torture by Al-Shabaab and that the Somali government would acquiesce.
The IJ denied CAT relief; the BIA issued a separate opinion adopting the IJ’s reasoning and affirmed. The government later conceded this court’s jurisdiction after Nasrallah.
The IJ and BIA considered Moallin’s risk factors both individually and collectively and concluded he failed to show a likelihood of torture either individually or cumulatively.
The agency found no evidence the Somali government would willfully acquiesce to torture by Al-Shabaab, noting Somali efforts to combat Al-Shabaab, use of amnesty to encourage defections, security reforms, and no record support for government–Al-Shabaab collusion.
Because Moallin failed to show government acquiescence (a required element of CAT relief), the court denied his petition and did not reach his separate arguments about Al-Shabaab’s likelihood to torture him or the availability of internal relocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA properly considered the aggregate risk of torture	Moallin: agency addressed risk factors only individually and failed to analyze cumulative risk	Government: agency addressed each factor and ultimately considered them together	Court: reviewing standards satisfied; agency considered aggregate risk and expressly found no cumulative likelihood of torture
Whether the Somali government would acquiesce in torture by Al-Shabaab	Moallin: Somali government is willfully blind, via amnesty program and infiltration, and thus would acquiesce	Government: Somali government actively fights Al-Shabaab, retakes territory, pursues reforms, and uses amnesty to induce defections	Court: substantial evidence shows no willful acquiescence; Moallin’s evidence insufficient
Whether Al-Shabaab is likely to torture Moallin personally	Moallin: he faces personal risk (including alleged Christian faith and church closure)	Government: record does not show personal risk rising to torture standard	Court: did not reach merits because failure on acquiescence dispositive
Whether internal relocation (e.g., Mogadishu) is viable	Moallin: cannot safely relocate within Somalia	Government: record supports possibility of safe relocation	Court: did not resolve because CAT claim failed on acquiescence element

Alzawed v. Barr, 970 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2020) (agency decision treated as final where BIA issues separate opinion; standard of review)
Lasu v. Barr, 970 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2020) (substantial-evidence review and standard for overturning factual findings)
Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2011) (CAT prohibits removal where torture is more likely than not)
Abdi Omar v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2020) (addressing aggregate-risk analysis of multiple factors)
Ramirez-Peyro v. Holder, 574 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2009) (government acquiescence inquiry focuses on willfulness of non-intervention)
Rodriguez de Henriquez v. Barr, 942 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 2019) (inability of government to stop violence does not alone prove acquiescence)
Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (denial of CAT relief when acquiescence element not met)
Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2004) (definition of torture requires severe pain or suffering; lesser abuses insufficient)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2020) (jurisdictional framework relied on by parties)