Marie-Rose Babi v. Jefferson Sessions
707 F. App'x 467
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joseph and Marie-Rose Babi (Lebanese citizens, Syriac Catholics) sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after violence in Lebanon (two beatings in 1980 and 1983; two church bombings in 1989).
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding credible testimony but concluding harms did not rise to past persecution and denying CAT relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews for substantial evidence and considered both parents’ and daughter’s claims separately.
- The majority held the BIA erred in rejecting findings of past persecution for both Joseph and Marie-Rose, based on physical injuries, resultant medical care (including self-treatment and treatment abroad), and documented emotional/psychological trauma.
- The court affirmed the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, finding petitioners failed to show it was "more likely than not" they would be tortured if returned to Lebanon.
- The case was granted in part and remanded to the BIA to consider whether the established past persecution gives rise to a presumption of future persecution and if that presumption is rebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joseph’s harms constitute past persecution | Beatings, church bombings, lasting physical and psychological injuries (self-treated and treated abroad) cumulatively amount to persecution | BIA: injuries not severe (no formal medical care for some injuries); returns to Lebanon show safety | Majority: BIA’s reasons unsupported — cumulative physical and emotional harm meets past persecution; remand for future-persecution analysis |
| Whether Marie-Rose’s harms (child) constitute past persecution | Child’s perspective: traumatic memories, psychiatric treatment, medication — severity measured by child’s experience | BIA relied on father’s supposed insufficiency and didn’t evaluate child perspective | Majority: BIA failed to assess child viewpoint; record shows severe emotional trauma — past persecution established |
| Whether petitioners meet CAT standard | Babis: risk of torture upon return given history of attacks and trauma | BIA: record does not show "more likely than not" risk of torture | Court: BIA’s CAT denial affirmed — substantial evidence supports no likely torture |
| Remedy / Next steps on remand | Request that established past persecution trigger presumption of well-founded fear | Government: BIA’s findings overcame any presumption | Held: Remand to BIA to decide whether past persecution yields a presumption of future persecution and whether record rebuts it (INS v. Ventura guidance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard of review: substantial evidence)
- Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing war-related displacement from targeted persecution)
- Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2008) (voluntary return to home country weighs against past persecution)
- Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2006) (voluntary return indicates perceived safety)
- Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (persecution may be emotional or psychological)
- Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (credible testimony can obviate corroboration requirement)
- Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2007) (children’s asylum claims judged from child’s perspective)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand guidance on presumption of future persecution)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (persecution requires some evidence of persecutory motive)