Dereck Njong v. Matthew G. Whitaker
911 F.3d 919
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Dereck Teke Njong, a native of English-speaking Cameroon and alleged member of the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC), entered the U.S. without documents in Sept. 2016 and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
- Njong testified he transported SCNC documents, was detained by the Cameroonian gendarmerie twice (Sept. 2015 and May 2016), beaten during the second detention, sustained injuries, and later fled through Nigeria to the U.S.
- Njong’s wife, Henrita, previously obtained asylum in the U.S.; she filed a derivative asylee petition on his behalf that Njong said remained pending.
- The IJ found Njong not credible and also concluded (alternatively) that even if credible, his harms did not constitute past persecution, he lacked a well‑founded fear of future persecution, and thus failed to meet the higher withholding standard; the IJ also denied CAT relief as it relied on the same facts.
- The BIA affirmed on the merits (declining to reach IJ’s credibility findings): it held Njong’s detention and beatings did not amount to past persecution, he failed to establish an objective well‑founded fear or a pattern-or-practice showing, and thus withholding and CAT relief also failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Njong suffered past persecution | Njong: two detentions and a beating by gendarmerie amount to persecution | Govt/BIA: harms were brief/minor and fall below persecution threshold | Held: not persecution (legal question reviewed de novo) |
| Whether Njong has a well‑founded fear of future persecution | Njong: ongoing risk to SCNC members and country reports show repression | Govt/BIA: country evidence and record do not compel objective fear; SCNC members not shown to be persecuted as a group | Held: no well‑founded fear (substantial evidence) |
| Withholding of removal (clear probability) | Njong: same facts support withholding | Govt/BIA: higher standard unmet because asylum standard unmet | Held: denied as asylum failure precludes withholding |
| CAT protection and requirement for separate analysis | Njong: entitled to CAT relief based on fear of torture | Govt/BIA: CAT claim arises from same facts, so no separate analysis needed | Held: CAT denied; separate CAT analysis not required because claims are the same |
Key Cases Cited
- Eusebio v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review and holding that brief detentions/minor beatings may not be persecution)
- Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (persecution is an extreme concept; excludes low‑level intimidation)
- Nanic v. Lynch, 793 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2015) (two police beatings did not rise to persecution)
- La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (beating and three‑day detention motivated by political animus not persecution)
- Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2005) (four‑day detention and beating with injury not persecution)
- Lemus‑Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2017) (substantial evidence review of well‑founded fear determination)
- Tegegn v. Holder, 702 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2013) (criteria for individual targeting or pattern-or-practice showing)
- Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (failure to establish asylum precludes withholding relief)
- Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (separate CAT analysis only required where torture risk is independent of asylum/withholding claims)