Camara v. Holder, 725 F.3d 11

Camara, a Guinean citizen born in Senegal, entered the U.S. in 1999 and overstayed; DHS charged him with removability and he conceded removability.
He sought withholding of removal (WOR) and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, alleging future persecution for opposing female genital mutilation (FGM) of his daughters if returned to Guinea.
Camara testified his U.S.-citizen daughters would be forced to accompany him and that his family/tribe would beat and subject him to voodoo for opposing FGM; he also claimed relocation within Guinea would be futile.
The IJ denied WOR and CAT, finding no past persecution, no likelihood of future persecution to Camara personally, and that internal relocation in Guinea would be reasonable; CAT relief was denied for lack of state involvement or acquiescence.
The BIA affirmed, relying in part on In re A-K- to hold that a parent’s fear for a child’s FGM, standing alone, does not provide a basis for WOR; Camara’s CAT claim was unchallenged and failed for lack of government acquiescence.
Camara petitioned the First Circuit, arguing relocation unreasonableness and that prospective FGM of his daughters constituted direct persecution (psychological harm) to him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether internal relocation in Guinea was unreasonable	Camara: FGM is nearly universal in Guinea so relocation would not avoid persecution	Government/BIA: Record does not show persecution of parents who oppose FGM or that relocation is ineffective	Held: Substantial evidence supports reasonableness of internal relocation; burden on Camara to show unreasonableness when no past persecution shown
Whether threat of daughters' forced FGM establishes "direct" persecution of Camara	Camara: Emotional/psychological harm from daughters’ potential FGM is direct persecution of him	BIA/IJ: Fear for child alone is derivative and not a statutory basis for relief; no showing daughters would be returned	Held: Claim foreclosed by In re A-K- and circuit precedent; fear for child’s FGM alone does not support WOR
Whether Camara established past persecution	Camara: He was threatened by family/tribe for opposing FGM	Government/BIA: Evidence shows only social disapproval; no past persecution proved	Held: Substantial evidence supports finding of no past persecution
Whether CAT relief is warranted	Camara: Could be tortured or officials would acquiesce	Government/BIA: Threat is from private actors; no evidence of state torture or acquiescence	Held: CAT relief denied for failure to show torture by or with acquiescence of Guinean officials

Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA adopting IJ findings)
Matovu v. Holder, 577 F.3d 383 (1st Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of asylum-related findings)
Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009) (deference to agency interpretation where appropriate)
Mariko v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (recognizing In re A-K- limitation on parent-based FGM claims)
Kechichian v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (In re A-K- forecloses relief for parent based on child’s FGM)
Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.) (denial of WOR where claim based on child’s potential FGM)
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir.) (denial of CAT/asylum relief in parallel circumstances)
Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir.) (contrary pre-A-K- decision granting refugee status to parent fearing child’s FGM)