Addo v. Barr
982 F.3d 1263
10th Cir.2020Background
- Joachim Addo, a Ghanaian national and son of the Challa chief, fled Ghana after repeated violent attacks, death threats, arson, and an assassination of a relative tied to a land dispute between the Challa and the larger Atwode tribe.
- Addo relocated from Nkwanta to Accra and moved within Accra multiple times, but his family was threatened there, his wife was assaulted, his house in Nkwanta was burned, and shots were fired into his bedroom in 2017; threatening text messages said the Atwode would "locate you anywhere you go."
- An IJ initially denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA found Addo had proved his father was chief, applied the presumption of future persecution, and remanded to decide whether DHS rebutted the presumption by proving safe internal relocation.
- On remand DHS submitted country/tribal profiles and a Library of Congress letter; the IJ and BIA concluded DHS met its burden, finding areas of Ghana outside Atwode control and noting family members remained in Ghana safely.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that Addo could safely relocate within Ghana and whether withholding of removal should be separately addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Addo's Argument | DHS/Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS rebutted presumption of future persecution by showing safe internal relocation | Addo: Atwode tracked and threatened him (texts, assaults, shots); Accra experience shows they can operate beyond Nkwanta so relocation is unsafe | DHS: Atwode are small/locally based; Ghana has ethnically heterogeneous areas and family members remain safely; Addo never tried relocating elsewhere in Ghana | Reversed BIA/IJ—substantial evidence lacking. Agency failed to address text threats and Addo’s experience in Accra; cannot rely on tribe's small size or heterogeneity alone; remand required |
| Whether Addo established entitlement to the presumption of future persecution (past persecution/protected ground) | Addo: proved father is chief and suffered attacks tied to land dispute | DHS: initially contested leadership proof but agency found Addo proved chiefdom connection | BIA found Addo proved his father was chief and the presumption applied (issue left intact by court) |
| Whether agency permissibly relied on factors like family safety, ethnic heterogeneity, and lack of prior relocation attempts | Addo: those factors are insufficient—Atwode targeted males, family members’ safety differs, relocation attempt not required | DHS: these factors show reasonable and safe relocation options exist | Court: rejected these bases as inadequate and/or irrelevant; agency failed to explain ignoring direct threats and tracking evidence |
| Effect on withholding of removal claim (higher burden) | Addo: asylum reversal requires remand of withholding claim for fresh consideration under higher standard | DHS: IJ denied withholding because asylum not granted and higher standard unmet | Court: reversed and remanded withholding claim as dependent on asylum relocation analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2006) (scope of appellate review of BIA decisions)
- Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2006) (consulting IJ opinion when BIA incorporates or shortens reasoning)
- Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review: substantial evidence for factual findings)
- Matumona v. Barr, 945 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2019) (asylum requires past persecution or well‑founded fear on protected ground)
- Ritonga v. Holder, 633 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2011) (relocation may defeat well‑founded fear if reasonable)
- Xochihua‑Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2020) (agency must cite evidence showing persecutors cannot operate in proposed relocation areas)
- Cardenas v. I.N.S., 294 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (direct threats indicating persecutor can find applicant undermines internal relocation finding)
- Arboleda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 434 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2006) (continued threats and communications can show relocation will not shield applicant)
- Gambashidze v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal relocation is a factual determination)