Camara v. Atty Gen USA
| Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:07-ag-03892 |
| Case Filed: | Sep 28, 2007 |
| Terminated: | Sep 04, 2009 |
Petitioner
Fatouma Camara
|
|
Respondent
Attorney General United States of America
|
GPO
Sep 04 2009
PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: SLOVITER, HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges and *POLLAK, District Judge. *(Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.)Total Pages: 17. Judge: POLLAK Authoring. |
|
|
GPO
Nov 04 2009
ORDER AMENDING OPINION (Coram: SLOVITER,and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK* District Judge) Pollak, Authoring Judge. Granting the government's request in part for modification of footnote 14 of the opinion filed September 4, 2009. It is ORDERED that footnote 14 of the opinion is hereby AMENDED to read as follows: Besides showing that the harm she experienced was severe enough to amount to persuction, Camara was also requiried to show that the harm was on account of a statutorily protected ground - e.g., her race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. ???? 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The BIA concluded that Camara did not suffer past persecution "assuming arguendo that the government officials who came to [Camara's] family home on one occasion in October 2002, falsely arrested her father for assisting rebel forces, and threatened [Camara] and her family that they would return to the family home for them as well, were centrally motivated by a protected ground under the Act." Prior to stating this conclusion, the BIA stated that it "agree[d] with the Immigration Judge that [Camara] has failed to demonstrate past persecution," citing to pages 7-9 of the IJ's opinion. In those pages of his opinioin, the IJ states, inter alia, that "no objective evidence was presented by the respondent for the Court to even infer that her father was abducted by members of the death squad on account of his ethnicity or religion." Had the BIA expressly adopted the IJ's conclusion that Camara's father's abduction was not on account of a statutorily protected ground, that holding might, arguably, have provided an independent basis for the BIA's conclusiion that Camara did not experience past persecution. But considering the BIA's blanket statement of agreement with the IJ in conjunction with the BIA's decision to nevertheless analyze the case under the assumption that Camara's father was abducted on account of a protected ground under the Act, we cannot tell whether the BIA meant to adopt the IJ's conclusion that Camara's father was not abducted on account of a protected ground. We must, therefore, review the BIA's opinion as if it did not adopt the IJ's conclusion. See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001) ("In this case, the BIA never expressly 'adopted' any portion of the IJ's opinion or announced that it was deferring to any of the IJ's findings. We therefore review only the BIA's decision."). On remand, the BIA may wish to consider this issue more directly, filed. Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States district Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. |