912 F.3d 1241
9th Cir.2019Background
- Rayamajhi, a Nepali citizen and former Doctors Without Borders employee, was repeatedly threatened and beaten by the Maoists in Nepal and fled to the U.S. in 2009.
- In February 2009 he knowingly gave ~ $50 to a Maoist who approached him; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after arriving in the U.S.
- IJ denied asylum and withholding under INA’s "material support" bar (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)) but granted CAT deferral; IJ found no jurisdiction to apply a duress exception.
- BIA affirmed denial of asylum and withholding (holding no de minimis or duress exception) and remanded limitedly on CAT deferral issues; on remand IJ again granted CAT deferral and that grant was not appealed.
- Rayamajhi petitioned for review arguing the $50 payment was de minimis and/or made under duress; Ninth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Rayamajhi's Argument | Whitaker/Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duress exception to the INA material-support bar exists | Payment was made under duress and so should not trigger bar | No implied duress exception; precedent forecloses it | No duress exception; claim foreclosed by Annachamy and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a de minimis exception exists for funds given to a terrorist org | $50 was de minimis and should not constitute "material support" | Statute and BIA interpretation treat funds as material support regardless of amount | No de minimis exception; statute and BIA interpretation compel denial; substantial evidence supports finding of material support |
| Applicability of Chevron deference to BIA interpretation | Agency interpretation should be reviewed but Rayamajhi argues the statute unambiguously excludes de minimis funds | BIA’s later interpretation is a permissible construction meriting Chevron deference if ambiguous | Court defers to BIA under Chevron when ambiguous; also concludes plain text treats funds as material support |
| Scope of court’s jurisdiction to review material-support bar application | Rayamajhi sought review of BIA denial of asylum/withholding | Government contended limits on review under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(D) and § 1252(a)(2)(D) | Court lacks jurisdiction over non-colorable duress claim; dismisses that portion and denies remainder on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing BIA decisions and when to review IJ’s decision)
- Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference to BIA legal interpretations under Chevron framework)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference)
- Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding no implied duress exception to material-support bar)
- Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional limits and reviewability of immigration determinations)
- Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (discussion of demanding materiality standard in different statutory contexts)
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (effect of a court’s statutory interpretation on subsequent agency permissible constructions)