Al Amiri v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 1

Background

Salim Al Amiri, an Iraqi-born lawful permanent resident of the U.S., worked as a paid contractor training U.S. Army personnel on Iraqi culture during the Iraq War.
He traveled to Iraq multiple times (including a six-week visit in May–June 2018) to see family.
On reentry to the U.S. in July 2018 CBP discovered a 2015 Michigan larceny conviction and placed him in removal proceedings; an IJ denied his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the BIA affirmed.
Al Amiri argued he fears future harm in Iraq on account of his work assisting the U.S. military (a proposed particular social group: Iraqis who assisted the U.S. military) and alternatively as an ‘Americanized/westernized’ individual.
The BIA relied on (1) the asserted vagueness of the ‘Americanized/westernized’ group, (2) insufficient objective fear because only one Iraqi neighbor knew of his work and his repeated voluntary trips to Iraq; it upheld the IJ on asylum and withholding but affirmed denial of CAT relief.
The First Circuit vacated and remanded the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding (finding the record, taken as a whole, could support a reasonable fear tied to his service) but upheld denial of CAT relief (petitioner failed to show torture is more likely than not by or with government acquiescence).

Issues

Issue	Al Amiri's Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s membership in a particular social group supports asylum nexus	Work-for-US-military Iraqis is a cognizable particular social group and his fear flows from that membership	BIA rejected ‘Americanized/westernized’ group as vague; did not expressly reject the ‘assisted-US military’ group below	BIA did not address the assisted-US-military group; court vacated and remanded asylum/nexus analysis
Whether discovery of his past work makes his fear objectively reasonable	Many people (former U.S. colleagues, family contacts) know of his work; risk of broader disclosure in Iraq	IJ/BIA found only one neighbor knew and that his trips showed he could conceal the history	Record considered as a whole supports a non-speculative fear of discovery; BIA’s contrary finding not supported; remand required
Whether voluntary, repeated short trips to Iraq undermine objective fear	Trips were short, for ill family members, and do not show safety if forced to reside in Iraq	BIA/IJ: repeated returns undercut objective fear of persecution	Court held short, controlled visits do not negate a reasonable fear of harm upon return to residence; BIA’s reliance on trips was insufficient
Whether petitioner met the CAT ‘more likely than not’ standard	Evidence shows risk of severe abuse/torture tied to his work or Americanized mannerisms	BIA/IJ: evidence insufficient to show torture more likely than not by or with government acquiescence	Court upheld BIA denial of CAT relief; petitioner failed to meet higher CAT burden

Key Cases Cited

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (well‑founded fear standard for asylum is less than preponderance)
Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90 (1st Cir.) (particularity/social distinction analysis for proposed social groups)
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (speculative discovery of out‑of‑country activism insufficient for fear)
Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (1st Cir.) (temporary return does not necessarily negate a fear of persecution)
Aldana‑Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.) (CAT requires showing more‑likely‑than‑not torture by or with government acquiescence)
Nako v. Holder, 611 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (CAT standard discussion)
Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (review focuses on grounds invoked by the agency)
Sanabria Morales v. Barr, 967 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (review looks to the record as a whole)