Tarek Suleiman v. Merrick Garland
20-3540
| 6th Cir. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Tarek Suleiman, born in Iraq, legally immigrated to the U.S. in 1974 and was ordered removed in 1990 after convictions for armed robbery and felonious assault; the IJ denied a waiver and the Board dismissed an untimely appeal.
- Over ~30 years Suleiman filed repeated motions to reopen; his fourth motion (Aug. 2019) sought reopening based on changed country conditions in Iraq and requested relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) as a Chaldean Christian.
- Suleiman relied mainly on news articles, reports, and an expert report asserting worsening conditions for Iraqi Christians since his last motion.
- The Board denied reopening because (1) the evidence was cumulative or the same as previously submitted and therefore did not establish materially changed country conditions, and (2) even if considered, the evidence was insufficient to meet CAT’s requirements.
- The Board found Suleiman failed to show a particularized likelihood of torture in Iraq or that torture would occur with government consent or acquiescence; the court reviews such denials for abuse of discretion and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2019 motion to reopen qualifies under the changed-country-conditions exception to the time/successive limits | Suleiman: Iraq has materially worsened for Chaldean Christians since his last motion; new evidence supports reopening | Board: Evidence is largely cumulative or predates prior filing and does not show a material change | Denied—Board reasonably found evidence cumulative and exception not triggered |
| Whether Suleiman qualifies for CAT protection (likelihood of torture; government consent/acquiescence; particularized risk) | Suleiman: as a Chaldean Christian he faces increased, life‑threatening targeting and a particularized risk of torture if returned | Board/Govt: Record shows general unrest and mistreatment but not torture‑level harms, particularized targeting, or government acquiescence | Denied—evidence does not compel finding of more‑likely‑than‑not torture or government consent/acquiescence |
| Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying reopening | Suleiman: Board’s conclusions were irrational or inconsistent with the record | Board: Provided rational explanations and an independent alternative ground (CAT insufficiency) | Denied—no abuse of discretion; Board’s decision rational and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Trujillo Diaz v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2018) (motion-to-reopen review is for abuse of discretion)
- Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standards and when Board’s reasoning is arbitrary)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (Board may deny motions to reopen based on lack of qualifying evidence)
- Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006) (requirement of a particularized threat for CAT relief)
- Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (factors for assessing future risk of torture)
- Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) (Court will reverse Board on CAT issues only if record compels contrary conclusion)
- Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 2010) (government consent or acquiescence requirement for CAT relief)