Ntiamoah v. Lynch
664 F. App'x 112
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Wilberforce Ntiamoah, a Ghanaian national and former NPP organizer, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on a 1992 arrest and beating by Ghanaian police for political activity.
- IJ denied relief in a July 2015 decision; BIA affirmed in November 2015.
- Government argued Ntiamoah was removable based on a conviction involving moral turpitude, limiting review of the removal order; court retained jurisdiction over legal and constitutional claims.
- Agency found Ntiamoah failed to show past persecution (insufficient detail about the 1992 beating) and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
- Agency relied on lack of corroborated harm or ongoing targeted threats, family members in Ghana remaining unharmed, and evidence that political power in Ghana has shifted over time.
- Court denied the petition for review, concluding agency committed no legal error and constitutional proportionality arguments failed because deportation is civil, not punitive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did petitioner show past persecution? | Ntiamoah: 1992 detention and beating by police for NPP activities constitutes past persecution. | Govt: Harsh treatment alleged lacked detail or demonstrated harm rising above harassment. | Held: No past persecution; petitioner gave insufficient detail to show severity. |
| Does petitioner have a well-founded fear of future persecution? | Ntiamoah: Threats and political status create reasonable fear; Ghana has pattern/practice of persecuting NPP members. | Govt: No objective basis — no recent threats, family unharmed, and political control has changed over time. | Held: No well-founded fear; fear speculative and record does not show pattern/practice affecting similarly situated persons. |
| Was exhaustion satisfied for the pattern-or-practice claim? | Ntiamoah: Claims presented (implicitly) to agency. | Govt: Argues exhaustion may be lacking. | Held: Court notes possible exhaustion defect but reviews IJ’s merits finding and affirms — evidence insufficient even if considered. |
| Do Eighth Amendment or Due Process require proportionality/humanitarian balancing in removal? | Ntiamoah: IJ must consider nature of criminal activity and humanitarian factors before removal. | Govt: Removal is civil; constitutional proportionality not required. | Held: No merit; deportation is civil, Eighth Amendment and Due Process proportionality not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions).
- Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (de novo review of legal questions).
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (non–life-threatening violence can constitute persecution).
- Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011) (requiring detail/corroboration for claimed abuse).
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (well-founded fear analysis).
- Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) (diminished fear where family remains unharmed).
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (harmless error / predictable agency outcome doctrine).
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate supports denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT).
- Santelises v. INS, 491 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1974) (deportation is civil, not punishment).
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (noting deportation is severe but civil).