Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-1-2005
Farah v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1295
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Farah v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 765.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/765
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-1295
ABDULLAHI AWAD FARAH
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES*
* (Caption amended pursuant to Rule 43(c), Fed. R. App. Pro.)
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(No. A78-701-910)
Submitted Pursuant to LAR 34.1(a)
January 18, 2005
Before: ALITO, MCKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: August 1, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Abdullahi Awad Farah applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) denied his petition and ordered his removal from the United States, affirming the
determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that Farah did not hold a well-founded fear
of persecution if returned to Somalia. Farah appealed the BIA’s final order, arguing that
the BIA’s determination regarding his fear of persecution is not supported by substantial
evidence, that he is entitled to relief under the CAT, and that he cannot be removed to
Somalia because the country has no central government. We affirm the BIA’s
determination that Farah is not entitled to relief under the CAT, and also hold, in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 125 S.Ct.
694 (2005), that the Attorney General can remove Farah to Somalia without securing the
consent of that country’s government. We remand to the BIA, however, to allow the
Board to consider whether members of vulnerable social groups such as the Midgan are
“persecuted” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(42), 1158(b), absent a showing that their attackers are motivated by an articulable
animus towards the targeted group.
I.
In order to establish eligibility for relief under the CAT, Farah must show that he is
more likely than not to be tortured if returned to Somalia. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
Torture is defined as any acts done “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity,” by means
2
of which “severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted” for purposes such as obtaining confessions, punishment, or coercion “or for any
reason based on discrimination of any kind.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); see also Sevoian v.
Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 175 (3d Cir. 2002). Farah presented evidence that, during
periods of great civil unrest in Somalia, his stepmother, uncle, and cousin were killed. He
also presented evidence that he was taken captive by a militia composed of members of
the Darod clan. Tragically, the record shows that civilian deaths were common during the
intensely violent phase of the Somali civil war during which Farah’s relatives were killed,
and therefore this evidence does not support Farah’s claim to relief under the CAT
without evidence of the killers’ motives or identities. The record further shows that,
while members of the Midgan clan are unfairly treated and vulnerable to the predations of
majority clans, the manner of injuries inflicted, including detention and impressment, do
not rise to the level of torture. Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471 (3d Cir. 2003).
II.
Farah argues that because Somalia has no central government the BIA erred when
it ordered his removal to that country. This argument is based on an interpretation of 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) that was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Jama, 125 S.Ct.
694. Given that the legal and factual circumstances in Jama are indistinguishable from
those presented in this case, Farah’s position is meritless and must be rejected.
3
III.
The only remaining issue is whether the IJ’s determination, affirmed by the BIA,
that Farah lacked a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Somalia was supported
by substantial evidence. Farah argued before the BIA, and argues on appeal, that he fears
persecution based on his membership in the Midgan clan. In support of this argument, he
relies on the U.S. State Department Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions for
Somalia (2000 ed.). According to the report, the Midgan constitutes a low-caste group in
Somali society. Farah belongs to the Madiban, a sub-group of the Midgan clan.
Discussing the hardships facing minority clans and castes, the Report states that “[w]hile
the minority clans were not, as a rule, singled out as military targets by the post-Barre
militias, they were victimized repeatedly by armed gunmen of all affiliations.” A-317.
The report adopts the view that “there is no automatic correlation between clan affiliation
and danger of persecution. Whether fears based on clan or sub-clan membership are well
founded would depend on the nature and durability of the alleged threat and particularly
on the applicant’s physical location in the country.” A-289. The Midgan do not control
any territory and, “[b]ecause they have no natural clan allies in the wider society, and no
collective voice in political circles, they can be attacked with impunity.” A-297.
Membership in a Somali clan can constitute membership in a “particular social
group” for the purposes of asylum. Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 345 (BIA 1996). In
order to qualify for asylum, Farah must establish his membership in the Midgan and show
4
that persecution is based on that membership. Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.
1993). Showing that persecution is based on membership requires consideration of “the
motives of the agent of persecution and requires a nexus between the infliction of harm
which constitutes persecution and one of the five protected grounds.” Matter of Kasinga,
1996 BIA LEXIS 15 (BIA 1996) (citing Fatin,12 F.3d at 1240). In cases where the
petitioner comes from a strife-torn country, the petitioner’s burden is not satisfied by
proving “that there exists a generalized or random possibility of persecution in his native
country; he must show that he is at particular risk - that his predicament is appreciably
different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow citizens.” Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847,
852 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted). The expected violence must be
“substantially more grievous in kind or degree than the general manifestation of hostility
between the competing ethnic and religious groups.” Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967
(9th Cir. 1998). In other words, everything turns on the persecutor’s motives. Chang v.
INS, 119 F.3d 1055, 1063 (3d Cir. 1997). As the Supreme Court explained in Elias-
Zacarias, the Immigration and Nationalization Act "makes motive critical," and therefore,
although an applicant is not required to provide direct proof of a persecutor's motives, "he
must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 483 (1992). A persecutor may have multiple motivations for his or her conduct,
but the persecutor must be motivated, at least in part, by one of the enumerated grounds.
Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 170 (3d Cir. 2003).
5
The BIA concluded that the deaths of Farah’s relatives during the civil war and the
detention that Farah suffered at the hands of the Darod militia were insufficient to give
rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. We agree that this evidence, on its own, does
not satisfy Farah’s burden of proof. As stated above, the deaths of his relatives took place
during the civil war, and there is no evidence that they were specifically targeted based on
their membership in the Midgan clan or because of some connection with the Barre
regime. Furthermore, as the IJ found, there is no evidence that Farah’s own civil service
position as an agricultural engineer stationed in a rural community marks him as a visible
supporter of the Barre regime and thus exposes him to greater danger. Finally, Farah’s
detention by the Darod does not appear to have been motivated by the fact that he was a
member of the Midgan clan; indeed, he testified that his captors mistook his clan identity
and released him upon learning he was a Midgan clansmen, albeit with a threat of future
impressment.
Farah’s detention is symptomatic of the general plight suffered by all the Midgan--
a pervasive vulnerability resulting from membership in a socially isolated group that does
not control any territory and is incapable of protecting its constituents. While the BIA
relied on the State Department report’s statement that “there is no automatic correlation
between clan affiliation and a danger of persecution,” simply stating that there is no
automatic correlation begs the question whether there is, in fact, some correlation
between Midgan affiliation and fear of attack. The record clearly suggests that beyond
6
the “generalized or random possibility of persecution” discussed in Kotasz v. INS, 31
F.3d at 852, the Midgan face a significantly higher risk of predation than other social
groups because they present so-called “targets of opportunity.” That said, while there is
some evidence in the record that the Midgan are regarded as inferior and are viewed with
some contempt by members of other clans, it is unclear whether the dangers to which the
Midgan are exposed are due to their vulnerability or because of a particular animus
towards the group. Because the BIA did not address the threat posed to the Midgan by
marauding clan militias, and because this case raises an important question regarding the
meaning of persecution as used in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, we will
remand Farah’s petition to the BIA for further consideration of whether membership in
the Midgan clan is sufficient to give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.