Amartsengel Sanjaa v. Jefferson Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13140
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sanjaa, a former Mongolian police officer, investigated a drug-trafficking ring involving prominent figures and was repeatedly beaten and threatened by unknown assailants who demanded he stop and destroy evidence.
- Fearing for his safety, Sanjaa fled to the U.S. on an F-1 visa in 2006 and remained after his status ended; DHS issued a Notice to Appear in 2010.
- Sanjaa conceded removability and filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; he conceded asylum was time-barred.
- The IJ found Sanjaa credible but denied withholding and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed, concluding the attacks were private retribution tied to his investigatory role, not to political opinion, whistleblowing, or membership in a protected social group.
- The BIA also held Article 24 of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UN‑CATOC) does not create an independent, domestically enforceable basis for relief; Sanjaa appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA on withholding/CAT and adopting the Second Circuit’s view that UN‑CATOC Article 24 is non‑self‑executing and not a standalone basis for immigration relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanjaa was persecuted "on account of" political opinion / whistleblowing such that he qualifies for withholding | Sanjaa: attacks were retaliation for his investigation and constitute whistleblowing/political opinion | Gov: attacks were private retribution tied to disruption of criminal activity, not political opinion or whistleblowing | Held: Evidence does not compel link to political opinion or whistleblowing; withholding denied |
| Whether past harm establishes membership in a "particular social group" (former police officers) | Sanjaa: targeted because he was a former police officer; that status makes him a protected group member | Gov: violence targeted his investigatory role, not his status as former officer; personal retribution is not group‑based persecution | Held: Attacks were for disrupting criminal activity, not as reprisal against former officers as a group; claim fails |
| Whether CAT relief was warranted (likelihood of torture by or with government acquiescence) | Sanjaa: faces torture if returned due to threats and past attacks | Gov: no evidence government tortured or acquiesced; police investigated incidents and no government torture occurred | Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA’s denial of CAT relief; claim fails |
| Whether UN‑CATOC Article 24 provides independent, enforceable basis for immigration relief | Sanjaa: Article 24’s witness‑protection obligations should provide relief from removal | Gov: Treaty obligations are non‑self‑executing and require implementing legislation; Article 24 is discretionary and vague | Held: Ninth Circuit adopts Second Circuit reasoning: Article 24 is non‑self‑executing and, absent implementing legislation, does not provide independent relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard: substantial‑evidence review for withholding/CAT denials)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (petitioner must show evidence compels conclusion required for relief)
- Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden to prove eligibility for withholding of removal)
- Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (physical harm can constitute persecution)
- Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutorily protected ground must be "a reason" for persecution)
- Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2000) (personal retribution not political persecution)
- Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing personal motives from protected political motives)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010) (whistleblowing can amount to political opinion)
- Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2005) (exposing government corruption may be political opinion)
- Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizes conceivable particular social group of former officers but requires more to connect targeting to group status)
- Doe v. Holder, 763 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2014) (UN‑CATOC Article 24 is non‑self‑executing and not a standalone basis for removal relief)
- Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (treaties are not domestic law absent implementing statute or clear self‑executing intent)
- Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) (executive branch interpretations of treaties merit weight)