Hassan v. Rosen, No. 19-2918 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the IJ's and BIA's decisions denying petitioner's request to defer his removal to Somalia under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner had entered the United States in 2001 under a false passport and was previously ordered removed. Petitioner then moved to reopen his case, which the BIA granted, remanding the case to the IJ where petitioner's request was denied.
The court affirmed the IJ's and BIA's judgments, holding that substantial evidence supported the conclusions that petitioner was unlikely to be tortured for minority-clan membership. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the IJ's and BIA's conclusions that any torture by Al-Shabaab does not qualify for CAT relief because the Somali government would not acquiesce in such torture. Rather, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's conclusions that the Somali government was unlikely to acquiesce in any torture by Al-Shabaab. Finally, the court concluded that the IJ and BIA properly considered the risk of torture in the aggregate.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Hassan v. Holder, 446 F.App'x 822 (8th Cir. 2012). The matter was reopened to consider Hassan's request for deferral of removal to Somalia; the BIA's decision denying deferral is affirmed, as substantial evidence supports the IJ's and the BIA's conclusions that Hassan was unlikely to be tortured by Al-Shabaab for minority-clan membership; the record does not show that the Somali government has willfully turned a blind eye to Al-Shabaab's activities, and substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's determinations that the Somali government was unlikely to acquiesce in any torture by Al-Shabaab; the IJ and BIA properly considered the risk of torture in the aggregate.
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.