Mumad v. Garland, No. 20-2140 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the non-per-se-PSC (particularly serious crime) term under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)) as unconstitutionally vague, concluding that the statute's text, while ambiguous, does more than apply to a crime's imagined, ordinary case and it imposes standards that must reference underlying facts. The court also rejected petitioner's alternative, non-refoulement claim. In this case, after determining that petitioner committed a PSC (past), the IJ did not need to conduct a separate danger-to-the-community analysis (present or future). Finally, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to CAT relief where he concedes that his evidence does not meet the more-likely-than-not standard of proof for being tortured if he were returned to Somalia.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner's challenge to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)'s non-per-se "particularly serious crime" term on that ground that it was void for vagueness rejected; after determining that petitioner committed a particularly serious crime, the IJ did not need to conduct a separate analysis of petitioner's current or future dangerousness to the community; petitioner's evidence did not meet the standard that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Somalia, and the agency did not err in denying CAT relief. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
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.