Yasmick Jeune v. U.S. Attorney General
810 F.3d 792
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Yasmick Jeune, a Haitian national and lawful permanent resident, conceded removability based on Florida convictions for cocaine possession (2009) and carrying a concealed firearm (2012) and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on membership in a particular social group (homosexual and/or transgender individuals).
- At the merits hearing Jeune testified about childhood and later harassment and threats in Haiti for being gay (beatings, threats to kill, an uncle’s assault), and described dressing as a woman; country reports indicated same-sex activity has been legal in Haiti since 1986 but societal discrimination and some violence against LGBT persons exist, with greater tolerance in some rural areas.
- The immigration judge found Jeune credible but concluded the incidents amounted to harassment and discrimination, not past persecution, and found he had not shown it was more likely than not he would be persecuted countrywide if returned; the judge also found internal relocation within Haiti feasible.
- Jeune appealed to the BIA, which affirmed: it held the alleged past mistreatment did not amount to past persecution, treated the claim as based on membership in a group including homosexual and transgender persons, concluded most evidence showed discrimination rather than widespread violence, and agreed relocation to tolerant rural areas was reasonable.
- On federal review Jeune (1) challenged the denial of past persecution (arguing the IJ failed to assess child-specific psychological harm and cumulative effect), (2) argued the agency failed to treat transgenderism separately from homosexuality, (3) claimed the agency lacked reasoned consideration of country evidence, and (4) argued the BIA erred under the internal-relocation regulatory framework.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Jeune’s past-persecution arguments for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, held it lacked jurisdiction to review factual determinations by a criminally removable alien but could review legal questions, and denied the remaining legal challenges—finding the BIA gave reasoned consideration and appropriately addressed internal relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Jeune's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jeune proved past persecution | Jeune: IJ failed to assess psychological harm to a child and cumulative effect of harassment, so past persecution was established | Gov: Jeune failed to present these specific legal arguments to the BIA; claims unexhausted | Dismissed for lack of exhaustion; court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims |
| Whether IJ/BIA erred by not considering transgender status separately | Jeune: IJ didn’t assess transgenderism distinct from homosexuality; BIA wrongly assumed separate analysis | Gov: Jeune never pressed a distinct transgender claim below; BIA reasonably analyzed the group as LGBT collective | Dismissed as unexhausted as to IJ error; merits denied for claim that BIA erred—no legal error shown |
| Whether agency gave "reasoned consideration" to future-persecution claim | Jeune: BIA ignored or failed to weigh relevant country evidence of violence against LGBT persons | Gov: BIA cited and considered the same background evidence and explained its weighing | Denied — the BIA’s decision reflects reasoned consideration; court reviews legal sufficiency only for criminal alien |
| Whether BIA applied internal-relocation regulation properly | Jeune: BIA failed to apply 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(b)(3) factors and overstated feasibility of relocation | Gov: Record contains no argument or evidence showing relocation unreasonable; BIA cited controlling precedent and considered reasonableness | Denied — BIA adequately considered relocation (cited Arboleda) and Jeune bore burden to show relocation unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (scope of review when BIA issues decision)
- Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for withholding of removal burden)
- Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (exhaustion requires presenting discrete arguments to BIA)
- Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013) (definition and review of "reasoned consideration")
- Arboleda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 434 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal-relocation reasonableness and required analysis)