Souleye Abdoulaye v. Eric Holder, Jr.
721 F.3d 485
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Abdoulaye, a Nigerien corporal and RDP supporter, participated in planning a July–August 2002 mutiny in Diffa and fled Niger before the uprising, arriving in the U.S. in August 2002.
- The Diffa mutiny involved several hundred soldiers who seized the regional governor, erected barricades, and demanded pay and reforms; government forces retook the town after a brief skirmish with casualties.
- Abdoulaye’s asylum application and supporting written statement identified him as one of the mutiny organizers; he later minimized his role at hearings, attributing discrepancies to translation errors.
- An immigration judge (IJ) found Abdoulaye engaged in "terrorist activity" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) based on the seizure of the governor and concluded Abdoulaye was involved in planning; the IJ granted deferral of removal under the CAT.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the terrorist-activity finding but reversed the CAT deferral, holding Abdoulaye failed to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Niger (record indicated arrests, trials, and prison terms of 3–7 years for mutineers).
- Abdoulaye petitioned for review; the Seventh Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and denied the petition, upholding the BIA on both terrorism and CAT issues.
Issues
| Issue | Abdoulaye’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Diffa mutiny constituted ‘‘terrorist activity’’ under INA §1182(a)(3)(B) | Mutiny was nonviolent/peaceful protest; governor not seized | Seizure of governor and demands satisfy statutory hostage-taking definition | Held: BIA/IJ reasonably concluded mutiny involved seizure; qualifies as terrorist activity |
| Whether Abdoulaye engaged in planning or organizing the mutiny (thus ‘‘engaging’’ in terrorist activity) | He was a low-level corporal who merely followed orders and overstated role due to translation errors | Documentary evidence, his written statement, visas obtained, and flight support planning role | Held: Substantial record evidence supports finding he was involved in planning |
| Whether Abdoulaye’s conduct alternatively constituted providing material support for terrorism | Denies providing material support; role minimal | Government argued material support as alternative basis | Held: BIA did not reach material-support question; IJ had treated it as alternative but BIA affirmed on terrorist-activity ground |
| Whether Abdoulaye established eligibility for deferral of removal under CAT (more likely than not he would be tortured) | Prison conditions in Niger are life-threatening; many mutineers disappeared; he fears torture or death | Record shows arrests, trials, appeals, and finite prison terms; no evidence of targeted torture or intent to inflict severe pain | Held: BIA reasonably concluded evidence did not show likelihood of torture; CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard for BIA factual findings)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (review limited where administrative findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of IJ decision as supplemented by BIA)
- Martinez-Buendia v. Holder, 616 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (review of BIA’s independent decisions)
- Hussain v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008) (statutory definition of terrorist activity interpreted broadly)
- Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 2006) (unlawful detention/prison as sanction not per se torture)
- Kang v. Attorney Gen., 611 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (harsh prison conditions require evidence of targeted intent to constitute torture)
- Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2010) (same principle regarding prison conditions and CAT relief)