Akosung v. Barr, No. 17-72829 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner fled her Cameroonian village after she was ordered to marry the village chieftain, called the Fon. In this case, petitioner's credible and unrebutted testimony establishes that, during the period after she left home, she was hiding in fear of her life and of being captured and taken to the palace for a forced marriage. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate any safe relocation in a place where the Fon's writ did not run.
The panel held that substantial evidence does not support the Board's conclusion that petitioner could relocate within Cameroon to avoid future persecution or torture; her proposed social group of "women resistant to forced marriage proposals" lacked social distinction; and she failed to establish a clear probability of torture with government acquiescence.
Court Description: Immigration Granting Yvette Akosung’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of asylum and related relief, and remanding, the panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determinations that: 1) Akosung could relocate within Cameroon to avoid future persecution or torture; 2) Akosung’s proposed social group of “women resistant to forced marriage proposals” lacked social distinction; and 3) Akosung failed to establish a clear probability of torture with government acquiescence. The panel concluded that Akosung’s ability to elude her pursuers at great effort and risk, while in hiding, did not establish that she would be able to avoid persecution or torture by relocating within Cameroon. The panel also concluded that the record did not support the Board’s determination that Akosung’s proposed social group lacked social distinction. The panel explained that to the extent the Board’s decision rested on a requirement of ocular visibility, it was inconsistent with Board precedent. The panel further concluded that to the extent the Board found that Akosung’s proposed group was not regarded as distinct in Cameroonian society, that finding was inconsistent with Akosung’s testimony. The panel rejected the government’s contention that Akosung waived any AKOSUNG V. BARR 3 challenge to the Board’s social distinction determination by redefining her proposed social group in her briefs to this court, concluding that her challenge was sufficiently presented to permit review. The panel concluded that the Board’s denial of CAT protection was flawed because the Board failed to consider evidence pertaining to government acquiescence; it placed too much weight on the absence of past torture, without taking into account evidence that Akosung avoided such harm by fleeing and going into hiding; and it limited its analysis to the threat of violence Akosung might face for resisting marriage, while overlooking the threat of violence, including possible rape, she would face if forced to marry.
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.