Omar Inventor v. Jeff B. Sessions
679 F. App'x 544
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners Omar Ahmed Pineda Inventor and Verna Mallari Inventor sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT deferral; BIA denied relief and Ninth Circuit reviews the petition.
- Petitioners conceded they filed asylum applications more than one year after entry; they argued a recent murder of Mrs. Inventor’s brother in the Philippines constituted a "changed circumstance" excusing the tardy filing.
- Record lacked evidence that the New People’s Army (NPA) committed that murder or that the NPA knew of or targeted the Inventors for their political opinions.
- Mrs. Inventor paid approximately 50,000 pesos in "revolutionary taxes" to the NPA under duress; the government contended this constituted material support to a terrorist organization.
- Petitioners presented no evidence that Philippine public officials consented or acquiesced in past persecution or would likely do so in the future for CAT purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness: whether changed circumstances excuse one-year filing bar | Murder of Mrs. Inventor’s brother was a changed circumstance excusing late filing | Record lacks evidence linking that murder to the NPA; no changed circumstance shown | BIA decision that applications were untimely is supported by substantial evidence; petition denied on timeliness ground |
| Material-support bar: whether Mrs. Inventor’s payments disqualify relief | Payments were involuntary (duress) and thus should not trigger bar | Payments to NPA constitute material support; duress is not an exception | Payments bar asylum and withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B); duress not an exception per circuit precedent |
| Nexus to protected ground: whether persecutors targeted Inventors for political opinion | Persecution was on account of political opinion | No evidence NPA knew of or targeted Inventors for political views; Mrs. Inventor admitted not expressing views | Inventors failed to prove persecutors’ motive; asylum and withholding denied for lack of nexus |
| CAT deferral: whether more likely than not to be tortured with state acquiescence | Risk of torture in Philippines warrants CAT deferral | Petitioners presented no evidence of official consent or acquiescence to torture | CAT claim denied for failure to show likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of public officials |
Key Cases Cited
- Bojnoordi v. Holder, 757 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for BIA legal and factual issues)
- Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (duress is not an exception to the material-support bar)
- Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (later en banc treatment related to material-support context cited for scope)
- Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirement to show well-founded fear on account of protected ground)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (petitioner must show persecutors were motivated by protected ground)