Morgan v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2647
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Morgan, an Egyptian Coptic Christian, sought asylum and other relief from removal after overstaying a visa and entering the asylum process in 1999.
- An asylum officer deemed him ineligible; removal proceedings followed, with Morgan conceding removability and applying for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- An IJ denied relief after Morgan testified about past mistreatment in Egypt; the BIA affirmed without opinion and Morgan initially petitioned for judicial review, which was dismissed as untimely in 2002.
- Morgan moved to reopen/remand in 2005, attaching evidence of hardships and threats; the BIA granted remand to an IJ.
- On remand, Morgan presented additional country condition evidence and family incidents; the IJ denied relief again, and the BIA denied Morgan’s motion to remand.
- Morgan challenged the removal order and the denial of remand in a single petition, arguing lack of explicit credibility determinations, entitlement to relief, and abuse of discretion on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA properly evaluated Morgan's asylum claim | Morgan argues credibility and explicit reasoning were required | Morgan's credibility need not be expressly resolved where, on face value, the evidence fails to prove relief | Substantial evidence supports denial; no explicit credibility determination required |
| Whether Morgan showed a well-founded fear of persecution | Evidence shows targeted harm based on faith | Harms are not sufficiently linked to government action or religion | Record supports lack of nexus and insufficient objective threat to sustain asylum |
| Whether the denial of withholding of removal was proper given asylum denial | Same facts as asylum could support withholding | Withholding requires a clear probability of persecution; asylum denial forecloses it | Withholding claim fails as asylum fails; stricter standard unmet |
| Whether the BIA abuse of discretion occurred in denying the motion to remand | Abdelmasih and changed country conditions support remand | Evidence was not new or material; remand discretionary denial was permissible | BIA did not abuse discretion; remand denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barsoum v. Holder, 617 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2010) (harms may be substantial yet not reach level of persecution)
- López de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2007) (well-founded fear standard; objective reasonableness; nexus and harm analysis)
- Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2005) (harm threshold and assessment of persecution standards)
- Orelien v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2006) (government nexus requirement for non-governmental persecutors)
- Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2004) (credibility of alien when assessing relief may be unnecessary if burden not met)
- López Pérez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 2009) (unitary review of multiple decisions; substantial evidence standard)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (harm nexus and burden of proof in persecution claims)