Annachamy v. Holder
733 F.3d 254
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Annachamy, a Sri Lankan national, alleges asylum and withholding of removal due to fear of persecution for aiding LTTE; he testified years of coercive detentions and torture by Sri Lankan forces while denying membership in LTTE; he claims he assisted LTTE under force and without knowledge LTTE was designated terrorist; IJ granted relief while recognizing coercion; BIA denied asylum on material support grounds but granted CAT deferral and remanded for background checks; this appeal challenges the material support bar’s scope and duress exceptions.
- LTTE engaged in terrorism; he provided meals, funds, and assistance under duress; he moved to the U.S. in 2005; DHS charged him with removable status; the IJ found credibility; the BIA relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv) to bar asylum and withholding.
- Statutory framework: material support bar deems involvement in terrorist activity if aiding a terrorist organization; Tier III organization LTTE; waivers exist via executive discretion; there is no explicit duress exception in the bar.
- Court reviews BIA decision de novo on legal questions with Skidmore deference to BIA; docketed question is whether political-offense or duress excuses exist.
- The court remands to determine whether Sri Lankan law incorporation or other factors would alter analysis? (not needed in final holding)
- Petition denied; no duress or political-offense carve-out recognized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a political offense exception to the material support bar? | Annachamy argues LTTE’s political violence should carve out. | LTTE is a terrorist organization; no exception for political violence. | No political-offense exception applies. |
| Does the material support bar apply to duress-supported conduct? | Annachamy contends duress invalidates bar. | Statute lacks duress exception; waiver mechanism exists. | No duress exception; bar applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2009) (broad terrorist bars; no political-offense carve-out; supports no duress exception)
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (voluntariness distinctions in related statutes; informs interpretation of voluntariness in terrorism bars)
- Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (U.S. 2009) (duress discussions; limits on reading duress into other bars)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (statutory interpretation principles re: Congress intent)
- Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses deferral/removal via CAT when engaged in terrorist activity)