Sesay v. Attorney General of the United States
787 F.3d 215
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- Musa Sesay, a Sierra Leonean, was abducted by RUF rebels in 2001, beaten, imprisoned, and forced under threat of death to carry weapons, ammunition, food, and water on several occasions.
- He escaped the RUF after about a month, fled the region, entered the U.S. in 2001, and applied for asylum; removal proceedings began in 2009.
- The IJ found Sesay credible, concluded he suffered past persecution as a member of a social group (those opposing forced conscription), but that changed country conditions rebutted a presumption of future persecution.
- The IJ and single-member BIA found Sesay provided "material support" to a Tier III terrorist organization (the RUF) and concluded the INA contains no duress exception to the material-support bar.
- Sesay petitioned for review to the Third Circuit, which accepted the factual findings under substantial-evidence review and reviewed the duress-question de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sesay’s carrying of supplies/weapons constituted "material support" | Sesay: his assistance was minimal/de minimis and non‑voluntary, so not "material" | Gov't: even low-level, logistical aid can materially support terrorism; Sesay knew RUF’s nature | Held: Actions exceeded de minimis; carrying weapons/ammo/ supplies during combat is material support. |
| Whether a duress/involuntariness exception excuses material support | Sesay: involuntary actions under threat of death should be excused | Gov't: statute contains no involuntariness exception; Congress/Exec. handle duress via waiver authority | Held: No duress exception in INA; voluntariness is not required to trigger the bar; Executive waiver process is the relief mechanism. |
Key Cases Cited
- McAllister v. Attorney General, 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2006) (material‑support analysis applied to asylum context)
- Singh‑Kaur v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2004) (non‑violent logistical support can be "material support")
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (material support statute applies broadly, including seemingly benign assistance)
- Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (no duress exception; Congress distinguished knowledge and voluntariness when drafting statute)