Baltti v. Sessions, No. 16-1037 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The petition for rehearing by panel was granted and the previous opinion and judgment on July 10, 2017 was vacated.
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner sought to narrow his defined social group, but the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument because it had not been raised before. The court held that the BIA's finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution based on his political opinion was supported by substantial evidence. In this case, there was no nexus between any possible persecution and his political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. Furthermore, while petitioner's fear of persecution may be genuine, he failed to point to specific facts indicating this fear was more than speculation of the possibility of future harm.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Riley and Beam, Circuit Judges, and Rossiter, District Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. The petitioner's petition for rehearing by panel is granted, and the court's opinion and judgment of July 10, 2017 are vacated. Petitioner seeks to narrow his defined social group and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider this argument since it had not been raised before the agency; petitioner does not ask the court to review the BIA's finding that the group he did raise before the BIA - witnesses who personally observed the massacre of members of the Anuak tribe - is not a cognizable social group, and the court will not address the merits of that determination; substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that there is no nexus between any possible persecution and petitioner's political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground; nor did the agency err in determining petitioner had not shown an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on his political opinions; as petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 10, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.