Djelika Camara v. Eric Holder, Jr., 705 F.3d 219

Petitioners are Mali citizens who overstayed visas in the United States.
Camara filed an asylum and withholding of removal application in 2006, listing Kalle as derivative.
An NTA charged removability in 2006; at the hearings Camara was lead applicant and Kalle was listed as derivative.
The IJ denied all relief in 2007; the Board remanded for updated caselaw on FGM claims.
On remand in 2010, the IJ held Camara’s asylum time-barred, granted withholding for Camara, and denied derivative asylum for Kalle; held that withholding is not available derivatively.
The Board affirmed in 2011; Petitioners appealed claiming due process and possible independent relief for Kalle, which the court now addresses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether withholding of removal is available derivatively to a derivative spouse.	Kalle contends derivative withholding should be available.	Board/IAJ held withholding cannot be derivative.	Derivative withholding not recognized under INA; affirmed.
Whether Petitioners’ due process rights were violated by the Board/IJ handling of Kalle’s independent relief claims.	IJ/Board failed to consider Kalle’s independent claims and mismanaged process.	Counsel indicated Camara lead; no independent claim raised; no error shown.	No due process violation; no substantial prejudice demonstrated.
Whether Kalle had a basis for independent asylum/withholding claims that the IJ/Board overlooked.	Kalle sought independent relief on remand.	No formal independent application filed for Kalle; reliance on Camara; no evidence of Kalle’s individual persecution.	No independent basis established; derivative relief denied on merits.
Whether the Board’s statutory interpretation of derivative withholding was reasonable and binding.	Seniority of statutory interpretation should permit derivative withholding.	INA does not provide derivative withholding; Board interpretation reasonable.	Board interpretation not shown to be manifestly contrary to law; upheld.

Hassan v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2005) (due process require full, fair hearing; substantial prejudice required)
Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (due process and reasonable opportunity to present case)
Elias v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2007) (review of Board decision; adopt/affirm IJ’s decision)
Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004) (factual review; substantial evidence standard)
Mikhailevitch v. I.N.S., 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard in immigration review)
Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal reviewed for manifest correctness)
Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006) (persecution must be individualized)
Harchenko v. I.N.S., 379 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2004) (individualized and not population-wide persecution)
In re A-K, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275 (BIA 2007) (BIA holding that derivative withholding not available under INA)