Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortjurisdictionstatuteprecedentappealasylum
tortprecedentasylum

Related Cases

Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder
View Case »
Ochoa v. Gonzales
View Case »
Zara v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Sutherland v. Holder
View Case »
Sulaiman v. AG
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rayamajhi v. Whitaker

Facts

Sunil Rayamajhi, a Nepali citizen, fled Nepal in 2009 after being tortured and threatened by a Maoist terrorist organization. Prior to his departure, he gave approximately $50 to a Maoist under duress, fearing for his safety. After arriving in the United States, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal, but an immigration judge found him ineligible due to his material support to the terrorist organization, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Sunil Rayamajhi, a Nepali citizen, fled Nepal in 2009 after being tortured and threatened by a Maoist terrorist organization.

Issue

Whether the material support bar to asylum and withholding of removal includes an exception for contributions made under duress or for de minimis amounts.

Whether the material support bar to asylum and withholding of removal includes an exception for contributions made under duress or for de minimis amounts.

Rule

The material support bar under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not contain an implied exception for individuals who provide support to a terrorist organization under duress or for de minimis amounts.

The material support bar under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not contain an implied exception for individuals who provide support to a terrorist organization under duress or for de minimis amounts.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by referencing the precedent set in Annachamy v. Holder, which established that the material support bar does not allow for a duress exception. The court found that Rayamajhi's argument regarding duress was not colorable under existing law, and thus it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Furthermore, the court noted that the statute does not specify a minimum threshold for what constitutes material support, affirming that even small contributions qualify.

The court applied the rule by referencing the precedent set in Annachamy v. Holder, which established that the material support bar does not allow for a duress exception.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Rayamajhi's petition in part and denied it in part, affirming the lower court's ruling that he was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to his material support to a terrorist organization.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Rayamajhi's petition in part and denied it in part, affirming the lower court's ruling that he was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to his material support to a terrorist organization.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the finding that Rayamajhi's material support to a terrorist organization rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the finding that Rayamajhi's material support to a terrorist organization rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.

You must be