Ali Alzawed v. William P. Barr, 970 F.3d 997

Alzawed, an Iraqi national, alleges he was tortured by Iraqi officials in the late 1980s because of his uncle’s position in Saddam Hussein’s government.
He entered the U.S. as a refugee in 1995 but was convicted in Missouri (2001) of two counts of first-degree child molestation; DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2006 and an IJ denied CAT deferral (Alzawed did not appeal that removal order).
Subsequent state convictions (2010 methamphetamine possession for sale in California; 2017 Missouri convictions for domestic assault and unlawful use of a weapon) preceded a 2018 motion to reopen and renewed CAT claim based on changed country conditions and threats from his uncle.
An IJ denied relief in December 2018, partly invoking res judicata but also addressing the merits and finding Alzawed’s fears speculative; the BIA dismissed his appeal in June 2019, agreeing the claims were based on a chain of assumptions.
Alzawed petitioned for review to the Eighth Circuit, raising (1) an aggregate-risk legal-standard claim, (2) a due-process claim about res judicata, and (3) that the BIA ignored or mischaracterized key evidence (expert report and hearsay about his uncle).
The Eighth Circuit applied the substantial-evidence standard to factual determinations, declined to consider unexhausted legal arguments, found any res-judicata error harmless, and concluded the BIA reasonably discounted speculative evidence, denying the petition.

Issue	Alzawed's Argument	Government/BIA's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard by aggregating multiple risk factors	BIA erred by not assessing risks in the aggregate	Claim was not raised before the BIA (procedural default); BIA therefore had no opportunity to address it	Court refused to review for first time on petition for review (exhaustion doctrine)
Whether BIA deprived Alzawed of due process by permitting IJ to invoke res judicata	IJ’s res judicata ruling denied him a fair hearing on past torture evidence	Any IJ error was harmless because IJ and BIA both considered the evidence and BIA applied the correct standard	No due-process violation; any res judicata error was harmless (outcome would not differ)
Whether BIA ignored/mischaracterized evidence (expert report; sister’s hearsay about uncle Sadoon)	BIA and IJ overlooked or misweighed credible evidence showing likely torture on return	BIA permissibly found claimant’s evidence speculative and relied on government experts and other record evidence	BIA’s factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence; court will not reweigh evidence; petition denied

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (Supreme Court limited scope of review in removal cases involving certain criminal noncitizens; factual CAT claims remain reviewable)
Marambo v. Barr, 932 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 2019) (failure to raise issue before the BIA bars review on petition for review)
Doe v. Holder, 651 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2011) (IJ error harmless when Board applies correct legal standard)
Yang v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2005) (remand appropriate when agency fails to consider specific, direct, credible evidence)
Quinteros v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2013) (future persecution claims must be more likely than not and not speculative)
Ramirez-Peyro v. Holder, 574 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining acquiescence requires official awareness and breach of duty to intervene)
Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2017) (court will not reweigh evidence when reviewing IJ/BIA factual findings)