Boto Jima v. William P. Barr
942 F.3d 468
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Boto Sugar Jima, a South Sudan native and U.S. lawful permanent resident, fled civil war and claimed a fear of torture if returned because of his Mabaan tribal membership.
- In 2016 Jima pled guilty to willful injury causing bodily injury (Iowa Code § 708.4(2)) after stabbing a victim; sentence was five years suspended for probation.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings, charging Jima with being removable as an aggravated felon based on a conviction for a "crime of violence." Jima applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The IJ found Jima ineligible for asylum/withholding due to the aggravated-felony conviction, but granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding Jima credible and likely to be tortured if returned.
- After the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya (invalidating 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)), the BIA asked the parties whether Iowa § 708.4(2) nonetheless qualified as a § 16(a) "crime of violence." Jima conceded the removability issue was foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent.
- The BIA reversed the IJ’s CAT grant, holding the IJ clearly erred by relying on a chain of assumptions about generalized inter-ethnic violence rather than showing a personal, more-likely-than-not risk of torture to Jima; the Eighth Circuit denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa § 708.4(2) conviction is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (removability) | Jima: conviction lacks an explicit force element and thus is not a §16(a) crime of violence | DHS: causing bodily injury necessarily involves use of physical force and qualifies under §16(a) | Court: Conviction is a §16(a) crime of violence—causing bodily injury necessarily requires force (relying on Castleman and Rice) |
| Whether the BIA misapplied the clear error standard in reversing the IJ’s CAT likelihood finding | Jima: BIA failed to apply proper deferential clear-error review to IJ’s credibility and likelihood determinations | DHS: BIA applied clear-error review and permissibly found IJ relied on speculative chain of assumptions and lacked individualized risk evidence | Court: BIA applied correct clear-error standard, did not improperly factfind, and permissibly vacated CAT deferral for lack of individualized proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (§16(b) held unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014) (holding that causing bodily injury includes the use of physical force)
- United States v. Rice, 813 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2016) (applying Castleman to treat causing physical injury as a crime of violence)
- Ademo v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2015) (explaining CAT relief cannot rest on speculative chains of assumptions)
- Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2012) (BIA reviews IJ factual findings for clear error)
- Nabulwala v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2007) (BIA lacks authority to engage in factfinding)