Olga Jad Kamar v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
875 F.3d 811
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Olga Jad Kamar, a Jordanian citizen raised in Jordan, came to the U.S. on student/visitor visas; conceded removability for violating F‑1 status. She has a U.S. citizen child and family ties in Jordan and the U.S.
- Kamar testified she became pregnant out of wedlock, later married, and that Jordanian relatives (notably cousin Alias) have threatened to kill her to "restore honor." She submitted letters from her mother and Alias and corroborating family testimony.
- IJ initially found Kamar not credible and denied withholding of removal and CAT relief; the BIA reversed on credibility and remanded. On remand the IJ again denied relief, finding no protected social group, insufficient objective fear, and that Jordanian authorities could protect her (via protective custody).
- The BIA affirmed, concluding the record did not show a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated persons, that protective custody showed government protection, and denied CAT relief. Kamar petitioned for review.
- The Sixth Circuit assumed, without deciding, Kamar’s membership in a particular social group (women accused of immorality under Jordanian norms) and found substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s conclusions about persecution risk or government protection. The Court granted the petition and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Kamar's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of withholding of removal based on risk of honor killing | Kamar: credible threats and letters show she more likely than not faces persecution by relatives and Jordan won’t protect her | Gov: threats ambiguous; government protects victims (protective custody, prosecutions); no pattern/practice of persecuting Christians accused of immorality | Court: Reverse — substantial evidence does not support BIA; record supports probable persecution and government protection is ineffective or amounts to persecutory conduct |
| Whether Jordanian "protective custody" violates the Convention Against Torture (CAT) | Kamar: involuntary imprisonment causes severe mental suffering and is inflicted/acquiesced in by public officials → meets CAT standard | Gov: custody is protection, not torture; no likelihood of torture by state actors | Court: Reverse — involuntary, indefinite custody that punishes victims can constitute torture/acquiescence; CAT claim requires further proceedings |
| Whether the BIA reasonably declined to address particular social group and relocation | Kamar: group recognized by courts; relocation not meaningfully addressed | Gov: argued insufficiency of group proof and availability of internal relocation | Held: Court assumed group without deciding and remanded for BIA to address relocation and group issues in first instance |
| Whether motion to remand (changed country conditions/asylum) was properly denied | Kamar: seeks remand to apply for asylum based on changed conditions | Gov: BIA found reports showed continuing conditions, not changed conditions | Held: Court did not decide remand denial separately because reversal on withholding/CAT made remand unnecessary; BIA to conduct further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (clear probability standard for withholding of removal)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (substantial‑evidence review of withholding findings)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (BIA should adjudicate certain issues in the first instance)
- Sarhan v. Holder, 658 F.3d 649 (recognizing Jordanian protective custody practices can be ineffective and punitive in honor‑crimes context)
- Namo v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 453 (factors for CAT risk analysis)
- Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (standards for reviewing BIA and IJ findings)