Tumaini Temu v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 868
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Temu, a Tanzanian national diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder, suffered repeated beatings and restraints in Tanzanian hospitals and prisons; persecutors used the label “mwenda wazimu” (demon-possessed) and said the mistreatment was because of his mental illness.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) credited Temu’s testimony and expert evidence about Tanzanian stigma, denied asylum and withholding of removal for lack of a cognizable particular social group and insufficient nexus, but granted Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the IJ’s conclusions, finding Temu’s proposed group — “individuals with bipolar disorder who exhibit erratic behavior” — lacked immutability, particularity, and social visibility; it also found no nexus to persecution.
- Temu petitioned for review in the Fourth Circuit; the majority granted the petition, vacated the BIA order, and remanded, concluding the BIA’s findings contained legal and factual errors and internal contradictions.
- The majority emphasized: (1) the BIA’s nexus finding contradicted undisputed evidence (persecutors’ statements); (2) the BIA misapplied social-visibility and particularity tests by demanding “20/20 visibility” and dissecting the group into parts; (3) the BIA erred on immutability given lack of medication access in Tanzania.
- Because Temu already had CAT relief, the court noted practical consequences of denying asylum (limiting adjustment and work authorization), motivating careful review.
Issues
| Issue | Temu's Argument | Government/BIA Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Temu’s proposed group qualifies as a "particular social group" (particularity, social visibility, immutability) | Group is limited to bipolar individuals who exhibit outwardly erratic behavior — identifiable, socially recognized (label), and immutable given lack of access to treatment | Group is overbroad and amorphous: "bipolar disorder" too broad; "erratic behavior" too subjective; persecutors target many non-diagnosed persons so social visibility fails | Majority: BIA misapplied law — reversed on legal error and factual contradictions; remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether Temu was persecuted "on account of" membership in that group (nexus) | Persecutors explicitly said treatment was because he was mentally ill; other mentally ill prisoners received worse treatment — direct nexus | Mistreatment was motivated by observable erratic behavior, not the diagnostic label (no nexus to the proposed group) | Majority: BIA’s nexus finding is irrational and internally inconsistent with its CAT finding; vacated |
| Whether immutability element is satisfied | Bipolar disorder is incurable; medication control irrelevant if medication unavailable in Tanzania — immutable in effect | Erratic behavior can be controlled by medication, so not immutable | Majority: BIA’s findings contradictory (discussing both incurability and controllability + lack of access); immutability satisfied on remand inquiry |
| Standard of review / deference to BIA (Chevron and factual review) | Deference applies but BIA cannot make internally contradictory factual findings or misapply legal standards | BIA’s interpretation of social-visibility/particularity is reasonable and entitled to deference | Majority: Afford deference but vacated because BIA’s conclusions were legally erroneous and factually inconsistent; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (court requires BIA consider the claimant’s proposed group as a whole)
- Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2012) (particularity and social-visibility analysis applied to gang-opposition groups)
- Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2010) (discussing Chevron deference to BIA’s interpretation of "particular social group")
- Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejecting BIA immutability rationale where medication is unavailable at home)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (social visibility does not require ocular identifiability)