Moallin v. Barr, No. 19-2743 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the IJ's and BIA's decisions denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that the Somali government will acquiesce in his torture by Al-Shabaab, a terrorist organization.
The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's findings that the Somali government would not acquiesce in any torture of petitioner by Al-Shabaab. In this case, the record does not show that the Somali government has willfully turned a blind eye to Al-Shabaab's activities. Rather, the Somali government and its allies have battled Al-Shabaab, retaken territory from it, and worked to maintain order. Furthermore, the Somali government is using its amnesty program as part of its fight against Al-Shabaab as a tool to encourage defections. Finally, petitioner's argument that the Somali government and Al-Shabaab act in concert to torture people is wholly without record support. The court stated that the fact that the Somali government has not successfully ended the threat posed by Al-Shabaab violence is insufficient to establish that the torture would be with the consent or acquiescence of a government official.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, arguing he would be tortured by Al-Shabaab if he returned to Somalia and that the Somali government would acquiesce in the torture; the BIA did not err in finding the record did not show that the Somali government has willfully turned a blind eye to Al-Shabaab's activities; rather the evidence suggests the government actively combats the organization and works to maintain order in the country; the fact that the government has not successfully ended the threat posed by Al-Shabaab is insufficient to establish that any torture would be with the consent or acquiescence of the Somali government. [ November 20, 2020 ]
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.