Yvette Akosung v. William Barr, 970 F.3d 1095

Background

Yvette Akosung, a Cameroonian woman, refused a customary forced marriage to the village Fon (chief) selected to settle her deceased father's debt.
After refusal she was pursued by the Fon’s envoys, her family faced sanctions, and local police declined to intervene; she repeatedly hid in different Cameroonian cities to avoid capture.
She ultimately fled through Nigeria and Mexico to the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The Immigration Judge found Akosung credible but denied all relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding she could internally relocate, did not belong to a socially distinct group, and failed to show risk of torture with official acquiescence.
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded, finding the Board’s relocation, social-distinction, and CAT analyses legally and factually flawed.

Issues

Issue	Akosung's Argument	Barr's Argument	Held
Internal relocation: whether hiding in-country counts as "relocation" that bars asylum/withholding	Hiding while hunted does not constitute reasonable or stable internal relocation	Akosung hid successfully for long periods (e.g., Douala), so she could relocate within Cameroon	Court: Living in hiding is not "relocate"; Board’s reliance on temporary hiding is unsupported and remand required
Particular social group: whether "women resistant to forced marriage proposals" (or single, childless women) are socially distinct	Such women are perceived and ostracized across communities; testimony shows social recognition and sanctions	Group is not socially identifiable or distinct in Cameroonian society	Court: Board’s social-distinction analysis conflicts with record and Matter of M-E-V-G-; remand for fuller consideration
CAT — official acquiescence: whether torture would occur with state acquiescence	Local police knew of Fon’s edicts and refused to intervene, showing acquiescence	Threats come from private traditional actors, not state officials; no government involvement alleged	Court: Board failed to analyze government acquiescence despite evidence police deferred to traditional rulers; remand required
CAT — past torture and sexual violence: whether absence of past torture and failure to raise rape forecloses CAT relief	Lack of past torture is not dispositive when applicant hid to avoid harm; forced marriage entails sexual violence/rape that may be torture	No past torture shown; agency not put on notice of a rape-as-torture theory	Court: Past torture not required; evidence of hiding is highly probative; record and briefs put Board on notice of forced-marriage sexual violence; Board must consider likelihood of rape/torture on remand

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 956 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2020) (reasonableness of internal relocation; hiding not inherently reasonable)
Agbor v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal relocation does not include living in hiding)
Singh v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2018) (similar holding on hiding vs. relocation)
Essohou v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2006) (relocation requires resettlement, not fugitive existence)
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion satisfied when Board considered the issue)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard for reviewing factual findings in immigration cases)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency must give reasoned consideration to relevant evidence)
Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (official acquiescence exists when authorities are willfully blind or stand by)
Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2015) (rape can constitute torture under CAT)