Ammar Marqus v. William P. Barr, 968 F.3d 583

Ammar Isam Marqus, an Iraqi native admitted as a U.S. refugee and later an LPR, was convicted in 2017 of attempted criminal sexual conduct and placed in removal proceedings.
The IJ admitted several expert declarations (Daniel Smith, Mark Lattimer, Shamiran Mako) but excluded country-conditions expert Rebecca Heller; the IJ denied withholding and CAT relief, citing the particularly serious crime bar and finding no likelihood of torture.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, denied Marqus’s motion to remand to add new evidence, and rejected his CAT claim.
Marqus contends he would likely be tortured on return because he is a Chaldean Christian, has a U.S. presence and criminal history, deserted the Iraqi military, was previously targeted by the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), and lacks ID documents.
He sought to add post-decision country reports (DOS 2017 Human Rights and Religious Freedom Reports) and a new expert declaration by Belkis Wille; the BIA denied remand without detailed analysis.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of CAT relief and found no due-process prejudice from excluding Heller, but remanded for the BIA to meaningfully explain its denial of the motion to remand based on the 2017 reports and new expert evidence.

Issue	Marqus's Argument	Government/BIA Argument	Held
1) Are factual findings denying CAT relief supported?	Yousif entitles Chaldean Christians (including Marqus) to relief; Marqus faces personalized risk from PMF and govt.	Government offered contrary expert evidence and showed no recent PMF interest in Marqus.	Court deferred to IJ/BIA; factual challenges rejected.
2) Did the BIA/IJ apply correct legal standard (aggregate analysis; In re J.F.F.)?	BIA failed to aggregate independent sources of risk and misapplied In re J.F.F. chain-of-events rule.	BIA/JJ considered aggregate risk; J.F.F. analysis unnecessary to denial.	Court found aggregate analysis adequate and no remand needed on J.F.F. issue.
3) Did excluding Heller’s country-conditions declaration violate due process?	Exclusion deprived Marqus of important country-conditions evidence.	Other experts covered country conditions and Marqus’s particular vulnerabilities; no prejudice.	Court held no due-process prejudice; exclusion harmless on this record.
4) Did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying remand to consider new 2017 State Dept. reports and Wille declaration?	The 2017 reports and Wille are new, material, and undermine IJ findings; remand required.	BIA concluded new evidence insufficient.	Court held BIA’s denial was conclusory; remanded for the BIA to analyze the new evidence.

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (Supreme Court holding that statutory bar on review of factual challenges to certain removal orders does not apply to CAT claims)
Shabo v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 237 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing BIA consideration and factual findings)
Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2015) (discussing CAT/withholding relief for Chaldean Christians at a specific point in time)
Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005) (burden for CAT: more likely than not would be tortured)
Preҫetaj v. Sessions, 907 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2018) (BIA must articulate reasons when denying motions to remand/reopen)
Kamara v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2005) (aggregation approach to probability of harm)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (aggregation rule for independent risks)
Quijada-Aguilar v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1303 (9th Cir. 2015) (aggregation analysis and application to CAT claims)