Appeal Brief- Immigration Case

[ENTER YOUR ADDRESS]

IN THE XXXX  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

In the Matter of:XXX.

In Removal Proceedings

 DETAINED XXX

APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON APPEAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ………………………………………………………………………. 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

STANDARD OF REVIEW………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………………………. 8

ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

  1. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ASYLUM……………………………………………….. 9
  2. APPELLANT’S TORTUROUS TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF THE CAMEROONIAN AUTHORITIES IS SUFFICEINT TO ESTABLISH PAST PERSECUTION UNER THE BOARD’S PRECEDENTS. ACCORDINGLY, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A WIHOLDING OF REMOVAL……………………………………………………………………………………. 11
  3. APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………. 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

XXXXX

XXXX

8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) 4

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 13

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 13

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) 9

8 CFR § 211(a) 7

8 CFR § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

In the Matter of:TEMGOUA SONTIA, Quivrin R.

In Removal Proceedings

 DETAINED A213-536-938
APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON APPEAL

COMES NOW Appellant, TEMGOUA SONTIA, Quivrin R., pro se, and pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1), submits the following for his brief on appeal.

  • STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
  • RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellant, XXX, is an adult male, a native and citizen of XXXX.r, page 4, at 8. Appellant left XXXX on or about XXXX and entered the XXXX on or about XXXX. Immediately before entering the U.S., Appellant had been in Mexico for almost five months.XXXX.

  • Arrest following Demonstrations.

Before his first arrest, Appellant was a student of Physics and Chemistry in Cameroon. T.r, page 63, at 5-8.  Appellant was first arrested on or about ZZZ when he participated in a protest against the election of President XXXX who was from the RDCP party. XXX On the day of arrest, Appellant had been paid to participate in a protest by the Cameroon Renaissance Movement. T.r, page 22, at 14 & page 65, at 17-20. As much as the protestors were being paid to protest, Appellant shared the opinion of the protestors. T.r, page 22, at 5, and 9 & page 66, at 15-18.

Upon his arrest, Appellant was taken to a building where the police put a sack over his head and beat him while interrogating him. T.r, page 68, at 8-11, and 13-16. The police looked up Appellant in the database for the opposition party supporters. Appellant was released when the police failed to find Appellant in the database, and after Appellant informed them that he only participated in the protest because the protestors were being paid. T.r, page 71, at 15-18.

After his first arrest, Appellant stayed in another village and decided not to return to university. He decided to apply for a passport which he received, through his father’s help, between April or May 2019. T.r, page 24, at 20.

  • Second Arrest

On or about June 2, 2019, Appellant was arrested again when he was preparing to travel, in the company of his friends. T.r, page 73, at 1-3. At that time, some Ambazonians had killed a military officer and the military were arresting potential suspects. Id, at 10-13. It follows; Appellant and one of his friends were arrested while the third friend was killed while trying to escape. Id, at 15-25 & page 74, at 1-3. The military mistook Appellant for an Ambazonian. Ambazonians are generally Anglophones. T.r, page 25, at 16-24. Appellant is a Francophone. All of Appellant’s attempts to show that he was not an Ambazonian were futile. The arrestees were put in a small room with around eight to twelve people. T.r, page 83, at 15. While in detention, Appellant had his head covered while the police kicked him. T.r, page 83, at 7-10. The police also poured cold water on him. Appellant suffered a wound on his back when he fell on a metal on the floor. Appellant was interrogated concerning the murder. T.r, page 77, at 2-5 & page 84, at 22, and page 85, at 1. After the interrogation, Appellant was helped to escape from the detention by an officer, Blaze, who was a friend to Appellant’s father. T.r, page 29, at 7-17 & page 77, at 20-24. Appellant walked for hours through a field until he reached an old lady’s house, who attended to Appellant’s injuries by medicinal plants. T.r, page 15, at 1. It was not until June 12, 2019, that Appellant sought medical assistance for his injuries. T.r, page 14, at 21.

When Appellant later met Blaze, Blaze informed him that Appellant was in a government database because he was arrested twice. T.r, page 29, at 23 & page 30, at 1. Therefore, the government considered Appellant anti-government and part of the Ambazonian movement. And the consequence of being Anti-government and a member of the Ambazonian movement was arrest, imprisonment and death. T.r, page 82, at 13-21. 

  • Police Report and Arrest Warrant

After his ordeal with the authorities, the government issued a command to report Appellant to the authorities if someone identified him. T.r, page 12, at 22 & page 34, at 8-12. In the report, Appellant faced several charges including being a rebel. T.r, page 87, at 13.

On or about June 19, 2020, an arrest warrant was issued against Appellant. The document charged Appellant with contempt, civil disobedience, secession, and inciting rebellion.  T.r, page 13, at 17.

  • Burning of Appellant’s House

A few weeks after Appellant left Cameroon, his house was burnt. T.r, page 17, at 6. Appellant shared the house with his brother and sister. T.r, page 17, at 20. Appellant’s mother lived in Tiko at the time, and his father was already deceased. T.r, page 17, at 24, & page 18, at 21.

  • Oppression by “General Field Marshall”

Since 2016 or 2017, Appellant’s family has lived in fear of a man known as General Field Marshall. T.r, page 100, at 10. He is the leader of the Ambazonian army. Id. The man chased people out of Appellant’s village because the Ambazonian rebels did not want their location to be known by the government. T.r, page 101, at 5. Appellant’s family was spared because Appellant’s mother was born in an Anglophone village. Id. The Anglophones raped Appellant’s sister in front of Appellant, and beat him, his brother, and his father. T.r, page 105, at 5, 9, and 22. The Field Marshall threatened Appellant that if anyone disclosed their location to the government, the person would face immediate harm. T.r, page 107, at 4-8.

  1. Threat from Uncle and Aunt 

Appellant’s uncle and aunt informed him that they wanted to seize Appellant’s father’s house after Appellant’s father died. T.r, page 107, at 10-22. It appears that the uncle and aunt, driven by greed, intended to sell Appellant’s father’s property. T.r, page 109, at 2, and 21-24.  They blamed Appellant’s mother for the death of Appellant’s father. T.r, page 108, at 5.

  • Appellant’s Trauma

Appellant experienced trauma because of the arrests he faced. He feared anyone in a uniform. T.r, page 37, at 3. He experiences nightmares and shakes when he remembers what happened to him. Id. At some point, he considered suicide. Id.

  • Leaving Cameroon

Appellant left Cameroon on or about June 19, 2019, when he received the arrest warrant from his uncle. T.r, page 32, at 4-6 & 16-19.

  1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On or about February 10, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Appellant with a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging Appellant as removable under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as an immigrant who, at the time of application for his admission, is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card, or other valid entry document required by the Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality as required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under Section 211(a) of the Act. Id. T.r, page 4, at 17.

On March 11, 2020, Appellant appeared for an initial master calendar hearing where Appellant was advised on his rights in the immigration court. T.r, page 3, at 16. On April 1, 2020, Applicant attended another master calendar hearing where he filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. T.r, page 5, at 24 & page 8, at 14. On May 26, 2020 and June 1, 2020, Appellant appeared for hearings on his case. Finally, the Immigration Judge made his ruling on Appellant’s case. I.J, page 2, paras 1-3.

Appellant hereby files this appeal.  

  • STATEMENT OF ISSUES
  • Whether the Immigration Judge erred by denying Appellant’s application for asylum in the United States because Appellant failed to satisfy the burden in establishing that he has suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground. IJ, page 11, para. 4.


  • Whether the Immigration Judge erred by denying Appellant’s application for withholding of removal because Appellant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that he suffered persecution in the past. IJ, page 13, para. 2, & page 16, para. 1. 


  • Whether the Immigration Judge erred by denying Appellant’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture because Appellant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured at the hands or with the acquiescence of the Cameroonian government if he returned to that country. IJ, page 18, para. 1.


  • STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Board reviews “questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo.” Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I & N Dec. 493, 496 (BIA 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3). Issues as to whether a party has met his or her burden of proof are similarly reviewed de novo. Matter of Roberto Mendoza Cuello, No. A021 334 966, 2011 WL 899606 (BIA Feb. 28, 2011).

  1. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Appellant is entitled to asylum because he satisfies the refugee definition. One can be a refugee even where he is erroneously thought to hold particular political opinions or mistakenly believed to be a member of a religious sect. In Re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 489 (BIA 1996). Besides, Appellant belonged in a protected group.  Appellant testified how he was informed that he was in a government database because he was arrested twice. It follows; the government considered Appellant anti-government and part of the Ambazonian movement. And the consequence of being Anti-government and a member of the Ambazonian movement was arrest, imprisonment and death. An arrest warrant and a police report were issued against Appellant. Accordingly, the Board should grant Appellant asylum.

Appellant is entitled to a withholding of removal because Appellant experienced past persecution under the hands of Cameroonian authorities. The said persecution was based on the statutorily enumerated grounds; the authorities imputed him as an Ambazonian. Appellant suffered both physical and emotional injuries when he was in detention.  During the interrogations, Appellant was also forced to testify that he was not an Ambazonian- this amounts to coercion, which is a form of persecution. T.r, page 28, at 1.

Appellant should be protected under the Convention Against Torture. It is more likely than not that Appellant will be tortured upon his return to Cameroon. Appellant left Cameroon when there was an arrest warrant and a police report against him. Therefore, if he returned to Cameroon, he would be subjected to torture under the hands of the authorities. The Immigration Judge also disregarded the country condition reports which put these torturous acts in context and explained that the Cameroonian government has in recent years broadened its persecution net beyond outspoken dissidents to those who express dissent and opposition in more subtle ways.  

  1. ARGUMENTS
  • THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ASYLUM.

Contrary to the ruling by the Immigration Judge, Appellant’s testimony to his persecution at the hands of Cameroonian authorities and, separately, his objectively reasonable fear of additional torture were he to return establishes, as a matter of law, his eligibility for asylum as a “refugee” under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the INA”), 8 U.S.C. 1158 et seq. 

The INA provides that a refugee “is a person who is outside of his or her country and is unable or unwilling to return ‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411–12 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)). Although Appellant has “the burden of proving that he is a refugee and that one of these five protected grounds ‘was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting’ him. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) . . . [his testimony] may be sufficient to sustain his burden if it is credible, is persuasive, and refers to sufficient specific facts to demonstrate he is a refugee.” Sharma, 729 F.3d at 411–12. Appellant’s testimony did just that, as an examination of the record and proper application of the Board’s precedent reveals.

The Immigration Judge’s decision to dismiss Appellant’s request for asylum because Appellant did not establish that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground is not supported by the law or record. IJ, page 11, para. 4. While the term “persecution” under the INA is by no means well defined, Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 and fn. 4 (5th Cir. 2004), the story of Appellant’s life in Cameroon is demonstrably one of political persecution under even the narrowest reading of the relevant decisions of the Board and federal Circuit Courts. First, “even a single beating can constitute persecution, assuming that the beating results in significant physical injury.” Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 615–16 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Asani v. INS, 154 F.3d 719, 722–23 (7th Cir.1998) (appellant suffered past persecution where he was detained by police, beaten, and had two of his teeth knocked out) and Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir.1997) (single beating in which petitioner’s face was bruised and his finger broken constituted past persecution)). By contrast, “general harassment does not rise to the level of a serious punishment or harm that would justify a grant of asylum.” Eduard, 379 F.3d at 188 (finding substantial evidence for denial of asylum where Appellants “were [not] interrogated, detained, arrested, or convicted” in their home country).

Second, the “harm or suffering need not be physical, but may take other forms, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment or other essentials of life.” Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 583–84 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Matter of Laipenieks, 18 I & N Dec. 433, 456–457 (BIA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 750 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir.1985)). Furthermore, “the concept of persecution is broad enough to include governmental measures that compel an individual to engage in conduct that is not physically painful or harmful but is abhorrent to that individual’s deepest beliefs.” See Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1242 (3d Cir. 1993) (“assum[ing] for the sake of argument that requiring some women to wear chadors may be so abhorrent to them that it would be tantamount to persecution”). Finally, “[i]n determining whether an alien has suffered past persecution, the IJ [and the BIA] must consider the cumulative effects of the incidents.” Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 861 (11th Cir.2007). In Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 23, 26 (BIA 1998), in which the Appellant was found to have experienced a break-in and his son to have suffered beatings, one requiring medical treatment, harassment, and humiliation at school, the Board found that “[i]n the aggregate, [the incidents] rise to the level of persecution as contemplated by the Act [INA].” 

In the instant case, Appellant was a member of a protected group. Appellant testified that he shared the opinion of the opposition party. T.r, page 22, at 5, and 9. Besides, Appellant testified how he was informed that he was in a government database because he was arrested twice. The government considered Appellant anti-government and part of the Ambazonian movement. And the consequence of being Anti-government and a member of the Ambazonian movement was arrest, imprisonment and death. The foregoing shows that Appellant was indeed part of a protected group. Persecution for “‘imputed’ grounds (e.g., where one is erroneously thought to hold particular political opinions or mistakenly believed to be a member of a religious sect) can satisfy the ‘refugee’ definition.” In Re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 489 (BIA 1996).

Appellant also gave accounts on the treatment he received in the hands of the Cameroonian authorities, by reason of his political affiliations. Notably, he sustained a deep cut on his back, and was severally beaten while in detention. Also, his house was razed down, and his father killed by separatists. T.r, page 19, at 5. Had the Immigration Judge considered the severity of Appellant’s mistreatment, it would have reached the opposite conclusion.

  • APPELLANT’S TORTUROUS TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF THE CAMEROONIAN AUTHORITIES IS SUFFICEINT TO ESTABLISH PAST PERSECUTION UNER THE BOARD’S PRECEDENTS. ACCORDINGLY, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A WIHOLDING OF REMOVAL.

Appellant credibly testified to separate instances of persecution in the hands of the Cameroonian authorities. Taken together, as required by Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 23, 26 (BIA 1998), and applying the appropriate legal authorities, the Board has ample evidence in the record to reverse the Immigration Judge’s decision. 

First, Appellant testified to his arrest by Cameroonian police and physical assault in captivity. Specifically, Appellant testified that he was beaten and tortured, [and] psychologically damaged while being interrogated. T.r, page 69, at 7-24 & page 70, at 1-17. Furthermore, Appellant was subjected to torture when he was arrested for the second time where he was slapped and suffered a cut on his back. T.r, page 28, at 1. If nothing else, the Immigration Judge clearly errs in finding that the injuries or problems from Appellant’s detention did not amount to past persecution. Appellant’s testimony, which was not disputed, is just sufficient evidence.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the Cameroonian authorities issued an arrest warrant and a report against Appellant. Appellant testified how he was informed that he was in a government database because he was arrested twice. Therefore, the government considered Appellant anti-government and part of the Ambazonian movement. And the consequence of being Anti-government and a member of the Ambazonian movement was arrest, imprisonment and death. Accordingly, Appellant fear[s] the arrest, and reprisals against himself. Like the detained and abused petitioner in Asani, 154 F.3d at 723, Appellant’s injury and abuse at the hands of the Cameroonian police offends any rational view of how prisoners should be treated. 

Appellant also recalls how, during his arrest, he was made to testify that he was not a supporter of the opposition party.  In so doing, the Cameroonian authorities continued their pattern of requiring Appellant to demonstrate his fealty to a regime he abhors. Such coercion is no less a form of persecution than being refused schooling, see, e.g., Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16, 20 (BIA 1989) and In Re S-A-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328, 1329 (BIA 2000), or being singled out for military service, see Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 970 F.2d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing “possibility” that petitioners conscription against his will was “persecution based on a political opinion”).

It is well-established that so long as one motive for persecutory conduct is one of the statutorily enumerated grounds, the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 have been satisfied. Matter of Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658, 662 (BIA 1988). “It is recognized that some cases involve possible mixed motives for inflicting harm; therefore, an asylum applicant is not obliged to show conclusively why persecution has occurred or may occur.” Matter of E-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 860, 861 (BIA 1997).

Furthermore, persecution for “‘imputed’ grounds (e.g., where one is erroneously thought to hold particular political opinions or mistakenly believed to be a member of a religious sect) can satisfy the ‘refugee’ definition.” In Re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 489 (BIA 1996).

Analyzed separately, Appellant’s traumatizing experience in Cameroon makes clear the error in the Immigration Judge’s finding that Appellant hadn’t suffered past persecution. IJ, page 13, para. 2, & page 16, para. 1. Looked at as a whole, the record leaves little doubt that he had. Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to a withholding of removal. 

  • APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE.

Relief under CAT requires a two-part, bifurcated analysis: first, it is more likely than not that the alien will be tortured upon his return to his homeland; and second, is there sufficient state action involved in that torture. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture does not require a nexus to Appellant’s political activity.” Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Circ. 2006).

Contrary to the Immigration Judge’s decision, the facts establish that Appellant met his burden to demonstrate past persecution on the basis of a political opinion. IJ, page 18, para. 1. Appellant established a well-founded subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of his political views. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13. See T.r, page 37, at 3.

Having cleared that threshold, the burden shifted “to the DHS to establish by a preponderance of the evidence either that there has been ‘a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in [his or her] country of nationality,’ or that the applicant could avoid future persecution ‘by relocating to another part of [his or her] country of nationality …, and under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.’” Matter of D-I-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 448, 450 (BIA 2008) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13). Unfortunately, DHS made no effort to rebut Appellant’s evidence of the probability of torture if returned to Cameroon, particularly the past torture of Appellant by the Cameroonian authorities, which established his eligibility for withholding of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208 et seq. 

The Immigration Judge completely disregarded the country condition reports which put these acts in context and explained that the Cameroonian government has in recent years broadened its persecution net beyond outspoken dissidents to those who express dissent and opposition in more subtle ways. Courts have found an abuse of discretion where an Immigration Judge refused to consider country condition reports. For instance, the Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion where the BIA and the Immigration Judge failed to consider how the Chinese government had broadened its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners to lower-level practitioners and not just leaders. Zhao v. Gonzalez, 404 F.3d at 305, 309 (5th Cir. 2005). 

It follows; based on Appellant’s testimony, the Immigration Judge should have found Appellant to have a well-founded fear of persecution. As the Immigration Judge did not, the Board should reverse its decision on those grounds. 

  1. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Appellant requests that the Immigration Judge’s decision be reversed and his application for asylum be granted. 

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                            

DATED:    ____________ 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.