Mohamed v. Barr, No. 19-3356 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions. The court did not find that "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude" that al-Shabaab's presence in Somalia is materially different than existed in 2011 based on petitioner's evidence. Furthermore, the IJ did account for the emergence and growth of ISIS-Somalia in its determination, but ultimately determined that the "isolated references" in the record were insufficient to establish petitioner's claims. Finally, the IJ did consider petitioner's personal circumstances when determining whether the alleged changed country conditions were material. In this case, the IJ concluded that Westernized Somalis face no greater threat of harm than existed at the time of petitioner's prior proceedings in 2011, and petitioner failed to sufficiently show how his presence on the 2017 repatriation flight thrust him into "particular notoriety" thereby creating a greater risk of persecution.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's decision to deny petitioner's motion to reopen based on changed country conditions; a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that al-Shabab's presence in Somalia is materially different than existed in 2011, when petitioner was ordered removed; petitioner failed to show how his presence on an aborted 2017 repatriation flight thrust him into particular notoriety and created a greater risk of persecution.
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.