Mohamed Kamara v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Mohamed Kamara v. Eric Holder, Jr.

512 F. App'x 696

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2013

Docket10-72403

StatusUnpublished

This text of 512 F. App'x 696 (Mohamed Kamara v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mohamed Kamara v. Eric Holder, Jr., 512 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 988, 937 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government rebutted the presumption that Kamara has a well-founded fear of persecution if he is returned to Sierra Leone. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-87 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence of fundamental changes in Sierra Leone rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Kamara failed to establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(A) based on the severity of past persecution. See Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.1999) (humanitarian relief based on severity of past harm is reserved for cases of “atrocious” persecution). However, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Kamara failed to establish “that there is a reasonable possibility that [he] ... may suffer other serious harm upon removal” to Sierra Leone. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(B). We remand to the BIA to consider whether to grant Kamara humanitarian relief as a matter of discretion.

Finally, since the government rebutted the well-founded fear of future persecution, Kamara’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *698 ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 988, 937 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government rebutted the presumption that Kamara has a well-founded fear of persecution if he is returned to Sierra Leone. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-87 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence of fundamental changes in Sierra Leone rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Kamara failed to establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(A) based on the severity of past persecution. See Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.1999) (humanitarian relief based on severity of past harm is reserved for cases of “atrocious” persecution). However, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that Kamara failed to establish “that there is a reasonable possibility that [he] ... may suffer other serious harm upon removal” to Sierra Leone. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(iii)(B). We remand to the BIA to consider whether to grant Kamara humanitarian relief as a matter of discretion.

Finally, since the government rebutted the well-founded fear of future persecution, Kamara’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid *698 ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F. App'x 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohamed-kamara-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack