Iman Suradi v. Jefferson Sessions
701 F. App'x 633
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Iman Khalil Suradi, a Jordanian national, sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on a well-founded fear of an honor killing by family or an estranged husband.
- This is the second appeal; Ninth Circuit previously concluded the record compelled that Suradi was more likely than not to face an honor killing and remanded for further proceedings regarding Jordanian government acquiescence.
- On remand the BIA and IJ relied on country reports and other materials concluding Jordanian authorities actively intervene and place at-risk women in protective custody; they discounted or failed to discuss Suradi’s credible testimony.
- Record evidence (State Department, Human Rights Watch, FIDH, news reports) documented multiple honor killings, judicial leniency, reduced sentences on appeal, involuntary/extended protective custody, and critiques that government efforts had not yet borne fruit.
- The Ninth Circuit held the record compelled both that Suradi faces a more-likely-than-not risk of honor killing if returned and that the Jordanian government acquiesces in such violence; it granted the petition and remanded to the BIA for proceedings consistent with that disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suradi faces more-likely-than-not risk of torture/honor killing if returned | Suradi: credible testimony and country evidence show high risk of honor killing | Gov: country interventions (protective custody, tribunals, NGO work) mitigate risk | Held for Suradi: record compels likelihood of honor killing |
| Whether Jordanian government acquiesces in honor killings | Suradi: state awareness and failure/ unwillingness to prevent; judicial leniency and reduced sentences show acquiescence | Gov: active intervention, protective custody, legal initiatives show non-acquiescence | Held for Suradi: government acquiesces in significant violence against women, including honor killings |
| Whether BIA/IJ erred by discounting Suradi’s credible testimony | Suradi: prior Ninth Circuit required BIA to accept her credible testimony and reasonable inferences | Gov: relied on country reports and asserted protective measures; did not properly integrate the testimony | Held: BIA/IJ erred by failing to accept and address Suradi’s credible testimony as required |
| Whether remand relief is required | Suradi: prior error and compelled record require grant of petition and remand for CAT relief | Gov: (implicit) agency findings sufficient to deny relief | Held: Petition granted; remanded to BIA for proceedings consistent with conclusion of risk and acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (jurisdiction over CAT deferral claims and scope of review)
- Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard on compelled conclusions from the record re: torture/acquiescence)
- Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (BIA must accept credible testimony and reasonable inferences when IJ makes no adverse credibility finding)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining acquiescence: awareness plus breach of responsibility to intervene)
- Sarhan v. Holder, 658 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2011) (criticizing agency conclusions denying relief where record shows government acquiescence in honor killings)