Nda Seka v. Sessions
714 F. App'x 901
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jean Bedel Nda Seka, an Ivorian national, fled to the U.S. after his father‑in‑law threatened him and sought to force his wife Florence into marriage with a wealthier man.
- Seka and Florence left the Ivory Coast separately, were detained at the U.S. border, and Seka indicated a fear of death if returned because of the marriage dispute.
- DHS placed Seka in removal proceedings; an asylum officer found a credible fear and the IJ conducted merits proceedings after multiple continuances. Seka repeatedly sought but did not obtain counsel and waived counsel initially.
- The IJ found Seka credible but concluded his fear arose from a personal/intrafamilial dispute with his father‑in‑law, not persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, and denied asylum and withholding of removal; CAT relief was not meaningfully preserved.
- The BIA affirmed, agreeing that the harm was motivated by a personal/financial dispute and that denial of a final continuance to obtain counsel was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seka established a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group | Seka: his marriage places him in Florence’s nuclear family, a cognizable group, and that membership is the central reason he is targeted | DHS/BIA: the feared harm stems from a personal dispute with father‑in‑law (financial motive), not group membership | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports that the motive was personal; asylum denied |
| Whether the BIA/IJ misdefined the particular social group (immediate vs. nuclear family) | Seka: the BIA should have recognized the nuclear family as the particular social group he belongs to | DHS/BIA: even if nuclear family recognized, evidence shows personal dispute, not persecution on account of group | Court: Assumed arguendo nuclear family could be cognizable but found substantial evidence that the harm was personal, so claim fails |
| Whether threats by a family member constitute persecution or past persecution sufficient for asylum | Seka: threats and family harassment amount to persecution and police won’t protect him | DHS/BIA: threats alone and unverified government acquiescence are insufficient; Seka never sought police protection | Court: IJ/BIA findings (threats not sufficient and no showing of state protection failure) stand; issue not meaningfully pressed on appeal |
| Whether denial of Seka’s last‑minute continuance to obtain counsel was an abuse of discretion | Seka: detained, non‑English speaker with no contacts; short continuance needed to secure counsel | DHS/BIA: IJ properly warned him, provided pro bono referrals, and had already granted multiple continuances over seven months | Court: Denial was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion; no inadequate notice of counsel right |
Key Cases Cited
- Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) (family custody/dispute threats are personal and outside asylum protection)
- Vatulev v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2003) (personal hostility and threats alone generally do not constitute persecution)
- Rivera–Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2012) (protected characteristic must be central to persecutor’s motive)
- Luevano v. Holder, 660 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for denial of continuance; abuse‑of‑discretion review)