LAW.coLAW.co

THOMAS v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-05No. No. 19-72235

Summary

Holding. The petition for review is granted, and the case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to reopen the proceedings.

Sinharib Thomas, an Iraqi national and Assyrian Christian, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of his motion to reopen his immigration case on timeliness grounds. Thomas argued that material changes in country conditions in Iraq entitled him to protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that the BIA had abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider substantial new evidence regarding threats to religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, particularly evidence showing that anti-American and anti-Christian militias had become integrated into Iraq's official security apparatus and operated with government acquiescence in large portions of the country.

Thomas presented specific, individualized evidence demonstrating why he faced heightened risk of torture compared to the general Iraqi population. He lacks Iraqi identification documents, does not speak Arabic, has a visibly Christian surname, bears Christian and Assyrian tattoos, and lacks familiarity with Iraqi culture—all factors that would make him conspicuous and vulnerable to targeting at military checkpoints throughout Iraq. The absence of proper identity documentation at these checkpoints would likely trigger arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture, particularly for single men unable to demonstrate fluency in Iraqi Arabic or local residence. The court determined this evidence satisfied the legal standard for Convention Against Torture relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether country conditions in Iraq had changed materially to support Convention Against Torture relief
  • Whether petitioner presented individualized evidence distinguishing his circumstances from general Iraqi population
  • Whether militias integrated into Iraqi security apparatus create torture risk with government acquiescence toward religious minorities
  • Timeliness of motion to reopen based on material change in circumstances

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen his case on the ground that it was untimely filed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sinharib A. Thomas, a native of Iraq and an Assyrian Christian, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the denial for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1202–03 (9th Cir. 2017). We grant the petition.

The BIA abused its discretion in concluding that country conditions had not changed materially with respect to Thomas’ eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA was required to consider whether country conditions changed materially such that Thomas “would more likely than not experience torture ‘inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official ․ or other person acting in an official capacity.’ ” Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)). Affidavits and other evidentiary material in the record describe new threats of severe violence and human rights abuses by self-ascribed anti-American and anti-Christian militias that are now official parts of the Iraqi security apparatus and have effective control of many areas throughout central and southern Iraq. Although the 2008 State Department Report documents general instability, violence, kidnapping, torture, and death, the material change supporting Thomas’ CAT claim is the undisputed evidence of violence and human rights abuses against minorities by militias acting either as the government itself, or with widespread impunity in Iraq.

Further, Thomas’ evidence has the requisite “individualized relevancy.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989–90 (9th Cir. 2010); Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1206. Thomas specifically identified how his predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by his fellow citizens: he has no Iraqi identification, does not speak Arabic, has “a clearly Christian last name,” has no knowledge of Iraqi culture, and has “Christian and Assyrian themed tattoos that will make it easy for [certain] groups to target [him].” Those circumstances, combined with restrictions on movement within Iraq, elevate his potential for visibility and change his likelihood to be targeted for torture by or with the acquiescence of the Iraqi state. The record details the various checks at multiple security checkpoints in Iraq, making it extremely difficult for someone like Thomas to travel to a safe location. Further, the lack of certain identity documents at a checkpoint would likely result in arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture. This is especially true for single men who are not fluent in Iraqi Arabic and cannot demonstrate residence in Iraq, because they would come under intense scrutiny due to suspicion of ISIS affiliation.

PETITION GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the BIA with the instruction to reopen proceedings.