Che Eric Sama v. U.S. Attorney General
887 F.3d 1225
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Che Eric Sama, a Cameroonian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after posting a pro‑gay message and associating with two gay friends; a warrant for his arrest was issued and he was later assaulted by unknown men.
- Sama was treated at a hospital; hospital staff called police, officers took his statement but did not arrest him or his purported attackers, and Sama’s mother was briefly detained when police sought Sama’s whereabouts.
- Sama’s evidence included his testimony, friends’ and family declarations, newspaper articles, and State Department and Amnesty International country reports documenting both historical abuse of LGBT persons in Cameroon and more recent improvements.
- The immigration judge found Sama credible but concluded he had not shown past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution because the police interviewed him, made no arrests, and recent country reports showed decreased arrests and some protection by authorities.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, emphasizing the police response (taking a statement, not arresting him) and relying on 2015 State Department reporting that incidents and arrests of LGBT persons had declined.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings under the substantial‑evidence standard and denied Sama’s petition for review, holding the Board’s conclusions were supported by reasonable evidence and that Sama received due process.
Issues
| Issue | Sama's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sama suffered past persecution on account of imputed homosexuality or political opinion | Sama: the assault, arrest warrant, and mother’s detention show past persecution by state or state‑complicit actors | Gov: incidents were isolated, police interviewed Sama and did not arrest him or abuse him; no evidence of state persecution | Held: Substantial evidence supports that Sama did not suffer past persecution (incidents did not rise to persecution) |
| Whether Sama has a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Sama: outstanding warrant, continued threats, and social hostility make fear objectively reasonable | Gov: police response and country reports show improving conditions and ability/willingness to protect; family statements speculative | Held: Substantial evidence supports lack of objectively reasonable fear of future persecution |
| Whether Cameroonian authorities are unwilling or unable to control private actors | Sama: police failed to find attackers and earlier state cooperation with vigilantes shows inability/unwillingness | Gov: police investigated (took statement), country reports show decreased arrests and instances of protection | Held: Board reasonably found authorities able/willing to protect; record does not compel contrary conclusion |
| Whether Sama was denied due process by the Board/immigration judge | Sama: Board ignored or failed to weigh evidence properly, lessened the weight of his credibility | Gov: Sama received notice and a hearing; Board gave reasoned consideration and need not address every piece of evidence | Held: No due process violation; Sama received notice and an opportunity to be heard and the Board’s consideration was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for linking persecution to government or inability to control private actors)
- Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review; deferential standard)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (definition of persecution and asylum evidentiary framework)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (scope of appellate review; may reverse only when record compels it)
- Al Najjar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (imputed political opinion/membership and well‑founded fear analysis)
- Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (Board entitled to rely on country reports; family speculation insufficient)
- Mazariegos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (deference to Board’s weighing of State Department reports)