Bojnoordi v. Holder, No. 10-73588 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Iran, challenged the BIA's determination that he provided material support in the 1970s to a "Tier III" terrorist organization (MEK), making him statutorily ineligible for immigration relief other than deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that, under a normal reading of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as amended by the PATRIOT Act, the statutory terrorism bar applied retroactively to an alien's material support of a "Tier III" terrorist organization and that the statutory terrorism bar applied in petitioner's case. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioner gave support to MEK in the 1970s and that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, or should not reasonably have known, that MEK was a terrorist organization during the time in which he gave it material support. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that a native of Iran provided material support to a Tier III terrorist organization and was thus ineligible for immigration relief other than deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that the statutory terrorism bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) applies retroactively to petitioner’s material support of a Tier III organization, the Mojahedi-e Khalq (“MEK”), even though his activities with MEK in the 1970s were before it was officially designated as a terrorist group. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that MEK was a terrorist organization in the 1970s. The panel further held that Bojnoordi provided material support to MEK during the 1970s and that he failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, or should not reasonably have known, that MEK was a terrorist organization during that time frame.
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.