U.S.

Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET

333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
Detroit, Ml 48207

Date of this notice: 9/1/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,

bOYl.JU._,

{!f1/v'L)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Wendtland, Linda S.
Pauley, Roger
Cole, Patricia A
l.l!inl\11
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: R-D-D-K-, AXXX XXX 728 (BIA Sept. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Mann, George Peter

George P. Mann & Assoc., P.C.
33505 W 14 Mile Rd., Suite 20
Farmington Hills, Ml 48331

.'

\,

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: ~ 7 2 8 - Detroit, MI

Date:

SEP - l 2015

APPEAL AND MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: George Peter Mann, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

MarkJebson
Senior Attorney

CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.

237(a)(l)(B), I&NAct [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(l)(B)] In the United States in violation of law

APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding of removal; Convention Against Torture

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mali, appeals from the Immigration Judge's April 16,
2013, decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal under sections
208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a) and
1231(b)(3), and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). During the
pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed a motion to hold case in abeyance or in the
alternative for administrative closure. The appeal will be sustained, the motion will be denied as
moot, and the record will be remanded for required background and security checks.
We review findings of fact, including the determination of credibility, made by the
Immigration Judge under a "clearly erroneous" standard. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i); Matter
of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629 (BIA 2003); Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002). We
review all other issues, including whether the parties have met the relevant burden of proof, and
issues of discretion, under a de novo standard. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(ii).
The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent was not credible (I.J. at 21-25).
Further, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent did not meet her burden of proof for
asylum as she did not demonstrate that her proposed social group, "women who have been
subjected to FGM in Mali and who have expressed an opinion about this practice, condemning it,
and who have thus suffered persecution and have a well-founded fear of future persecution as
a result of such stigmatization," constitutes a particular social group (I.J. at 26-28). Also, the
Immigration Judge determined that the respondent did not show that she suffered persecution on
account of a protected ground (I.J. at 28). Moreover, the Immigration Judge found that the
respondent did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mali (I.J. at 29-35).
Additionally, the Immigration Judge found that the respondent did not meet her burden of proof
for withholding of removal and CAT protection (I.J. at 35-36).
Cite as: R-D-D-K-, AXXX XXX 728 (BIA Sept. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

"
,

\.

~28

Further, based on the respondent's credible testimony, we find that she established past
persecution on account of a protected ground. The respondent testified that she was forced by
her family members to undergo FGM when she was 6 years old (Tr. at 40-47, 145). She testified
that since the FGM, she has experienced numerous ailments because of the FGM (Tr. at 48, 144,
178). The Inunigration Judge did not find the respondent's claim of past FGM incredible
(I.J. at 26 n.13). See Matter of A-T-, 24 l&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008); see also Dieng v. Holder,
698 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2012) (Female genital mutilation involves the infliction of grave harm
constituting persecution on account of membership in a particular social group that can form the
basis of a successful claim for asylum); Matter ofA-T-, 25 I&N Dec. 4 (BIA 2009).
Having demonstrated past persecution, the respondent is presumed to have a well-founded
fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(l). The DHS bears the burden of rebutting that
presumption. See Matter of A-T-, supra; see also 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b). The DHS did not
sustain its burden. Therefore, we will reverse the Inunigration Judge's denial of asylum and find
the respondent eligible for asylum and deserving of such relief in the exercise of discretion.
Finally, in light of our resolution in this matter, we deem the respondent's motion to hold
case in abeyance or for administrative closure to be moot. The motion states that it is in the
alternative, to be adjudicated only if the appeal otherwise would be dismissed. Consequently,
our sustaining of the appeal effectively moots the motion.
Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the Inunigration Judge's denial of asylum is reversed.
FURTHER ORDER: The respondent's motion to hold case in abeyance or in the alternative
for administrative closure is denied as moot.
FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(6), the record is remanded to the
Inunigration Judge for the purpose of allowing the DHS the opportunity to complete or update
identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings, if
neOOMW,,

WW focili, ~~~;;~.[003.47fu).
FOR THE BOARD
2

Cite as: R-D-D-K-, AXXX XXX 728 (BIA Sept. 1, 2015)

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

We find that the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding is clearly erroneous.
Considering "the totality of the circumstances" under section 208(b)(1 )(B)(iii) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. l 158(b)(l)(B)(iii), we find that the discrepancies noted by the Inunigration Judge
would not be sufficient, without more, to render the respondent's overall testimony incredible, or
to support the Inunigration Judge's adverse credibility finding in this case. See Hachem
v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011) (stating that under the REAL ID Act standard,
credibility determinations are based on the "totality of circumstances" and take into account "all
relevant factors," citing the specific factors stated in section 208(b)(l)(B)(iii)). Accordingly, we
find the respondent to be credible.