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

tortappealasylumvisa
tortstatutewillasylumvisa

Related Cases

Mendis v. Filip
View Case »
Agha v. Holder
View Case »
Martinez v. Lynch
View Case »
Tawuo v. Lynch
View Case »
Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sarhan v. Holder

Facts

Saad and Sara Sarhan, citizens of Jordan, overstayed their visitor visas in the United States. While there, a family member spread false rumors that Sara had committed adultery, leading her brother to threaten to kill her to restore family honor. The Sarhans applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on this threat, but their application was denied by the Immigration Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The Sarhans appeared in Immigration Court on January 17, 2006, and conceded that they were removable because they had overstayed their visas. They filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal and requested relief under the CAT based on Besem's death threat.

Issue

Whether the wife, who is at risk of an honor killing due to false accusations, is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture or withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group.

This petition presents the question whether a woman who will fall victim to an 'honor killing' at the hands of a family member is entitled to relief either under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) or under the procedure known as 'withholding of removal.'

Rule

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, withholding of removal is mandatory if an applicant establishes that it is more likely than not that she would be persecuted in the country of removal because of her membership in a particular social group.

Withholding of removal is mandatory under the INA if an applicant establishes that it is more likely than not that she would be persecuted in the country of removal 'because of [her] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3); see also Benitez Ramos v. Holder, 589 F.3d 426, 430-31 (7th Cir. 2009).

Analysis

The court determined that the wife successfully established her membership in a particular social group consisting of Jordanian women accused of immorality, which places them at risk of honor killings. The Board's finding that she had not shown a clear probability of being killed was not supported by substantial evidence, as it failed to consider significant evidence regarding the Jordanian government's inability to protect her.

Focusing first on withholding of removal, the IJ rejected Disi's argument that she was a member of a social group for purposes of the statute. The Board agreed with the IJ. Defended by the government, the Board described Disi's social group as Muslim women falsely accused of adultery. This is not accurate.

Conclusion

The court granted the petitions for review and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

We grant the petitions for review and remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The Sarhans prevailed in the case because the court found that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence and failed to properly consider the evidence presented regarding the wife's risk of honor killing.

The court held that she successfully established that she is a member of a group that included all Jordanian women who, in accordance with social and religious norms in Jordan, were accused of being immoral criminals and thus, faced the prospect of being killed without any protection from the Jordanian government.

You must be