Richardson Edionseri v. Jefferson B. Sessions III
860 F.3d 1101
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richardson Edionseri, a Nigerian citizen admitted to the U.S. in 2006 on the condition he attend college, petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2010 after dropping out of school.
- At hearing he testified to being accused of wizardry in Nigeria, experiencing visions, supernatural afflictions (including a persistent foul odor), multiple exorcisms, and assaults by neighbors/tenants; police responded to calls but no arrests resulted.
- He fears return to Nigeria because alleged belief in witchcraft/wizardry leads to ostracism, torture, and potential violence by private actors or supernatural agents.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Edionseri credible and excused his late asylum filing but denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief primarily because the harms were not inflicted by the government or by private actors the government was unable or unwilling to control; the BIA affirmed.
- The court reviewed the BIA and IJ decisions under the substantial-evidence standard and considered statutory refugee/persecution requirements and precedents about government inability/unwillingness to control private actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether harms from supernatural forces or related private actors qualify as "persecution" for asylum | Edionseri: supernatural harms and related human agents caused persecution and the government could not protect him | Government: statute requires persecution by government or private actors the government cannot control; supernatural harms not covered and government here could control private actors | Court: Harms from supernatural forces are not "persecution"; BIA interpretation reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether the Nigerian government was unable or unwilling to control private actors who harmed Edionseri | Edionseri: police failed to prevent or punish assaults and community condoned witchcraft violence | Government: police responded to incidents; record does not show government condoned or was unable to protect victims | Court: Substantial evidence supports agency finding government did not condone and was not unable to control private actors |
| Whether Edionseri had an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution | Edionseri: risk of ostracism, torture, or harm upon return due to witchcraft accusations | Government: risk speculative; supernatural agents could target anywhere; mother remains safe in Nigeria; alleged perpetrators evicted | Court: Fear not objectively reasonable given record, government efforts, and ability of supernatural threats to operate anywhere |
| Eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief based on same facts | Edionseri: same factual basis supports withholding and CAT protection | Government: failure to satisfy asylum standards and no showing of government acquiescence in torture | Court: Because asylum denied, withholding also fails; CAT denied—substantial evidence shows no government acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Juarez Chilel v. Holder, 779 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing BIA that adopts IJ and adds reasoning)
- Popescu-Mateffy v. Holder, 678 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2012) (deference to BIA interpretations of immigration law)
- Saldana v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (persecution must be by government or private actors government cannot control; CAT acquiescence standard)
- Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2012) (asylum requires past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution both subjectively and objectively reasonable)
- De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2013) (withholding of removal standard tied to asylum showing of government inability/unwillingness)
- Bin Jing Chen v. Holder, 776 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2015) (relevance of family members remaining safe in home country to objective fear analysis)