Ali v. Garland, 33 F.4th 47

Background

Ali, a Somali national who arrived in the U.S. as a child and received asylum in 2002, was served an NTA in 2020 based on prior Massachusetts convictions and alleged drug/trafficking activity.
At removal proceedings the IJ sustained removability, found Ali had committed a "particularly serious crime," and ruled him ineligible for withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
Ali sought deferral of removal under the CAT, advancing three grounds: likely torture by (1) al-Shabaab with alleged government acquiescence, (2) private militias/armed criminals, and (3) Somali security forces.
The IJ denied CAT deferral, finding no government acquiescence for al-Shabaab (due to armed conflict between al-Shabaab and the Somali government) and rejecting the other claims; the BIA affirmed.
The First Circuit granted review: it affirmed the BIA as to the al-Shabaab claim but vacated and remanded the BIA’s rulings on the private-actor and security-forces claims because the IJ/BIA did not adequately address or consider relevant evidence (notably expert Mary Harper’s testimony and declaration).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAT deferral should have been granted based on torture by al-Shabaab with Somali government acquiescence	Ali: al-Shabaab would target and torture him as a westernized criminal deportee; Somali authorities will be willfully blind	Government: Somali government is actively fighting al-Shabaab; no acquiescence	Court: Affirmed BIA/IJ — substantial evidence supports finding of no governmental acquiescence due to armed conflict
Whether IJ/BIA failed to consider evidence of torture by private militias/armed criminals ("other private actors")	Ali: Harper’s testimony and March 2020 declaration show private actors target deportees and authorities won’t protect them; IJ ignored this evidence	Government: BIA considered the record and reasonably concluded the risk did not demonstrate torture-level harm	Court: Vacated and remanded — IJ did not meaningfully consider that evidence; BIA’s affirmance did not rest on a supported IJ finding
Whether IJ/BIA failed to consider evidence of torture by Somali security forces	Ali: Harper’s testimony and declaration describe arrests, beatings, and abuse by security forces targeting westernized deportees	Government: BIA/IJ reasonably concluded evidence did not show likelihood of torture or sufficient detail of injuries	Court: Vacated and remanded — IJ’s opinion did not make the required findings or consider contested evidence; factual assessment must be revisited
Whether the agency complied with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) (consideration of all relevant evidence) and whether findings are supported by substantial evidence	Ali: IJ violated § 1208.16(c)(3) by overlooking material Harper evidence; record does not support denial on the overlooked grounds	Government: Agency considered the evidence; BIA need not address every piece of evidence in minute detail	Court: Mixed — no error on al-Shabaab; but for private actors and security forces the IJ/BIA failed to show they considered all relevant evidence or make supported findings, so remand required

Key Cases Cited

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standard for stays pending appeal)
Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (jurisdiction and substantial-evidence review of CAT orders)
DeCarvalho v. Garland, 18 F.4th 66 (1st Cir. 2021) (BIA factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
Ramírez-Pérez v. Barr, 934 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2019) (government acquiescence and CAT analysis)
Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2015) (elements and definition of torture)
Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (torture definition and evidentiary requirements)
Bonnet v. Garland, 20 F.4th 80 (1st Cir. 2021) (reviewing both IJ and BIA reasoning)
Hassan v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 2021) (Somalia-related acquiescence precedent)
Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2005) (remand when credibility and whole-record assessment are required)
Zannino v. General Motors, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues raised perfunctorily are waived)
Li Sheng Wu v. Holder, 737 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2013) (BIA not required to dissect every contention)