Aminata Dieng v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23043
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Dieng and Lo are Senegal natives seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; Dieng fears FGM for herself and daughters if returned.
- Dieng’s sister died from circumcision; two prior FGM attempts on Dieng; parents opposed further circumcision after the death.
- Dieng and Lo married; their daughter Mame is a U.S. citizen born in 2006; Mariame remains in Gambia.
- Dieng qualified asylum claim for past persecution based on Fulani social group; BIA later found change in circumstances and relocation options could defeat future persecution.
- IJ and BIA denied asylum/withholding/CAT relief; BIA found relocation to urban Senegal or Wolof status could avert FGM; Abay-based derivative claim for daughters rejected.
- Record includes State Department reports on declining FGM prevalence and demographic differences across regions and ethnic groups.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA properly rebutted the well-founded fear of future persecution | Dieng argues ongoing fear; Abay precedent should apply to daughter risk | BIA found change in circumstances and feasible relocation negate well-founded fear | No reversible error; fear not well founded; BIA affirmed denial |
| Whether Dieng can rely on Abay to claim direct persecution for her daughters | Abay supports derivative asylum for child’s risk | Abay distinguishable; Senegal context not Ethiopia; children could avoid risk | Abay not controlling; Abay distinguished; direct persecution claim rejected |
| Whether Mame’s U.S. citizenship negates Dieng’s risk and whether derivative relief is viable | Mame could be kept in U.S.; removal would still expose Dieng to risk | Mame’s citizenship allows safe stay in U.S.; relocation feasible for parent | Mame’s citizenship removes her from risk; no reversible error in denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004) (well-founded fear for daughter under Abay; context differs by country)
- In re A-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 275 (BIA 2007) (distinguished Abay; derivative vs direct asylum; Senegal context)
- Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2009) (derivative asylum distinctions; safeguarding U.S. citizen children)
- Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2007) (limits on persecution theory for child risk when child is citizen)
- Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2009) (contextual support for country conditions and relocation)
- Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (well-founded fear framework and standards of review)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (Supreme Court 1987) (expanded fear standard: possibility sufficient)