Tarfa Saladin Momoh v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Publisher	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Publication Date	2 December 1993
Type of Decision	92-70235
Cite as	Tarfa Saladin Momoh v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2 December 1993, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,USA_CA_9,3ae6b67a20.html [accessed 20 May 2023]
Comments	Argued and submitted: 8 October, 1993; Filed: 2 December, 1993
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

TARFA SALADIN MOMOH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION and
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
CA No. 92-70235 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
October 8, 1993, Argued, Submitted, San Francisco,
California
December 2, 1993, Filed

Subsequent History: Reported in Table Case Format at: 12 F.3d 1107.

Prior History:

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I&NS No. 27-581-986

Disposition:

REVERSED.

Judges:

Before: HUG, FARRIS, BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:

MEMORANDUM

We have carefully reviewed the record. The BIA failed to indicate reasons for rejecting Momoh's compelling evidence that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. It found Momoh to be a creditable witness. Momoh's factual allegations are not refuted by any evidence in the record. We recognize that the alien seeking asylum under section 208(a) of 8 USC § 1158(a) "must demonstrate that he . . . is unable to return to his country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion." Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1111, 1121 (9th Cir.). The well-founded fear standard has an objective and subjective component: The subjective component requires a showing that the alien's fear is genuine. The objective component requires a showing by credible, direct and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear that petitioner faces persecution . . . Id. (citations omitted).

The Immigration Judge who found Momoh's testimony credible, concluded that Momoh's testimony did not support a finding that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA affirmed. It found an absence of evidence that the new military government of Babangida would persecute Momoh upon his return. This conclusion is contradicted by evidence that was deemed credible. Babangida was second in command in the old regime. Two articles submitted by Momoh and relied upon by the Immigration Judge showed continuation by Babangida of persecution of the opposition party of which Momoh is a member. A State Department letter upon which the BIA apparently relies does show that some opposition party prisoners have been released but the letter (1) shows that the regime continues to ban all political parties, and (2) fails to even approximate the number of prisoners "charged or convicted" as opposed to released.

Our review is for an abuse of discretion. We are compelled to conclude that no evidence in the record rebuts the overwhelming showing made by Momoh. We refer, of course, to the imprisonment and beating of Momoh, the arrest and imprisonment of his family members, the continued imprisonment of his father, the confiscation of the family property, the post arrest harassments of Momoh himself, as well as other evidence of persecution in the record, all deemed credible by the trier of fact.