Imran v. Boente
678 F. App'x 37
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Mohamed Imran, a Sri Lankan national, petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision affirming an IJ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief following several arrests and a 2010 abduction by Sri Lankan authorities.
- Imran testified that in 2010 he was abducted, questioned about prior arrests and whether he financially supported the LTTE, slapped, threatened with death, extorted for a large bribe, and forced to leave Sri Lanka under threat of being killed if he returned.
- The IJ found the 2010 incident was motivated by extortion rather than a belief that Imran supported the LTTE, and denied asylum/withholding/CAT; the BIA affirmed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA opinions, granted the petition for review, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court concluded the agency erred by focusing on extortion as the sole “central” reason and failing to consider mixed motives, the context of the detention, cumulative severity, and the relevant country conditions for CAT analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Imran's Argument | Boente (Gov't) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus for asylum/withholding: whether past harm was on account of imputed political opinion (support for LTTE) | The 2010 abduction and mistreatment were at least partly motivated by officials’ perception that he supported the LTTE; credible interrogation about LTTE support shows nexus | The 2010 abduction was motivated by criminal extortion, not a protected ground; no nexus to imputed political opinion | Court: Agency erred by treating extortion as the sole central reason; credible testimony about questioning re: LTTE suffices to show at least one central reason and requires reconsideration (mixed-motive analysis) |
| Severity/persecution: whether the harm rose to level of persecution | The abduction, threats to kill, physical abuse, extortion, and forced exile—viewed cumulatively and in context of arrest—can constitute persecution | The harm was extortion and did not amount to persecution | Court: Agency should reconsider severity in context (arrest/detention on protected ground may elevate harm to persecution) |
| CAT relief: likelihood of torture on return | Country conditions plus past mistreatment and threats make torture more likely than not | Past abduction was for extortion; insufficient showing of likelihood of torture on return | Court: IJ’s CAT conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence; remand to assess likelihood of torture given testimony and country conditions |
| Procedural/bias claims: whether IJ ignored affidavits or was biased | IJ ignored family affidavits and showed bias favoring government | IJ considered affidavits; solicited government view but also questioned petitioner’s counsel on legal issues | Court: Claims meritless; IJ stated he considered affidavits and questioning did not demonstrate bias |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (imputed political opinion can be basis for asylum)
- Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (review both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Chun Gao v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 122 (imputed political opinion constitutes political persecution)
- Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289 (requirement that agency consider "at least one central reason" and mixed-motive claims)
- Uwais v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F.3d 513 (context of arrest/detention for suspected LTTE support can make subsequent abuse attributable to imputed political opinion)
- Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (economic motive does not preclude other causes; mixed motives possible)
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (contextual sensitivity: physical abuse during arrest/detention on protected ground can be persecution)