Ethel Harmon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13041
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Harmon, born in Liberia (1984), entered the U.S. in 1994 as an unaccompanied minor; alleges severe childhood trauma, including sexual assault and that both parents were killed during the Liberian civil war.
- Lived in the U.S. thereafter, received Temporary Protected Status for a time, but later missed renewals and was placed in removal proceedings for overstaying a visa.
- Filed defensive applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; IJ denied relief and TPS; BIA dismissed the appeal and denied motions to terminate and to remand to USCIS.
- Harmon moved to reopen/terminate proceedings arguing (1) IJ lacked jurisdiction because TVPRA gives USCIS initial jurisdiction over asylum claims of (current or former) unaccompanied minors, and (2) the TVPRA permanently exempts former unaccompanied minors from the one-year asylum filing deadline; she also appealed denial on the merits.
- While appeal was pending, Harmon complied with the removal order and went to Canada; the Sixth Circuit held the appeal was not moot and proceeded to review jurisdictional and merits issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ lacked jurisdiction because TVPRA vests initial asylum jurisdiction in USCIS for all current and former unaccompanied alien children | TVPRA’s wording and "Permanent Protections" heading mean former unaccompanied children retain USCIS initial-jurisdiction even after turning 18 | TVPRA limits USCIS initial jurisdiction to applications filed while the applicant is an unaccompanied alien child; Harmon filed as an adult | Held: TVPRA jurisdiction applies only to asylum applications filed while the applicant is still an unaccompanied alien child; IJ had authority to decide Harmon’s claim |
| Whether TVPRA permanently exempts former unaccompanied alien children from the one-year asylum filing deadline | TVPRA’s exemption of subsection (B) for "an unaccompanied alien child" removes the one-year bar permanently for anyone who was an unaccompanied child when they entered | Government: exemption applies only while the applicant remains an unaccompanied alien child; it does not permanently erase the one-year rule after adulthood | Held: Court did not resolve the open statutory question because Harmon’s asylum claim failed on the merits |
| Whether Harmon established asylum eligibility (nexus to protected ground) | Harmon's trauma and family deaths are tied to her parents’ political opinions and/or to membership in protected social groups (e.g., foreign women) | Government: record shows generalized wartime violence without sufficient nexus to a protected ground; country conditions do not show targeted persecution of foreign women | Held: Substantial-evidence supports BIA/IJ that Harmon failed to prove persecution on account of a protected ground or a well-founded fear tied to membership in a protected group; asylum denied |
| Whether Harmon established withholding of removal or CAT protection | Harmon: clear probability of persecution (rape/FGM) as a foreign woman; CAT relief also argued | Government: withholding standard unmet for same reasons as asylum; CAT claim not exhausted before BIA | Held: Withholding denied (higher burden unmet); CAT claim dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction over BIA removal orders and standards of review)
- Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F.3d 548 (6th Cir.) (statutory interpretation principles and deference to agency where applicable)
- Cruz-Samoyoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir.) (asylum/refugee definition and elements)
- Yu Yun Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878 (6th Cir.) (evidentiary limitations and sympathetic treatment of unsworn or aged testimony)
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir.) (jurisdictional bar where petitioner fails to exhaust CAT claim administratively)
- Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439 (6th Cir.) (removal does not necessarily moot an alien’s appeal because of collateral consequences)