Abdu v. Holder
**Terrorist Organization**
The BIA’s finding that the Oromo Liberation Front (“OLF”) is a terrorist organization under the INA is supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that the OLF acted unlawfully under Ethiopian law and used land mines to derail cargo and passenger trains, killing between five to fifteen people. This constitutes terrorist activity under the statute even though the acts may have been acts of self-defense against the Ethiopian government and the OLF did not target civilians. See Khan v. Holder, No. 07-72586 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009), which holds that there is no exception in § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii) for acts of armed resistance against governmental military targets even if such resistance is permitted under international law. The BIA’s determination that Abdu engaged in terrorist activity is also supported by substantial evidence because Abdu admitted to soliciting funds and members for the OLF which he knew was an armed organization fighting against the government.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/11/06-71098.pdf
Chhun v. Holder (1 and 2)
**Terrorism bar**
The Chhuns are ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because they engaged in terrorist activity through her membership in and work on behalf of the Cambodian Freedom Fighters (“CFF”). They admitted that they solicited funds and members for the CFF, which is terrorist activity under the INA. The CFF is a terrorist organization– it attempted an unlawful armed coup against the Cambodia government, killed at least eight individuals, and involved “the use of” an “explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device . . . with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.” The Chhuns’ argument that this provision does not apply to organizations engaged in armed resistance of certain regimes fails under Khan v. Holder, No. 07-72586 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2009). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the Chhuns did not show by clear and convincing evidence that they did not know nor reasonably should have known that the CFF was a terrorist organization because they admitted at their individual hearing that they knew the CFF was an illegal organization that wanted to overthrow the government. Accordingly, they knew or reasonably should have known that the CFF was planning a terrorist activity against the Cambodian government. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that the Chhuns are ineligible for relief under CAT as there is no evidence that members of the CFF who have been arrested and prosecuted for their membership in the CFF have been tortured.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/11/06-75360.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/11/06-75183.pdf
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment