Skip to main content

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals did not properly consider the evidence in a petition for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
 
Mr. BinRashed’s father was active in a government opposition group following Yemen’s civil war. As a result, the family was detained several times and in one instance when government officials could not locate Mr. BinRashed’s father, they threatened to arrest Mr. BinRashed instead. In Mr. BinRashed’s petition for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, he presented a variety of evidence showing that the harassment and threats he had already suffered were an indication of the potential for future persecution. Mr. BinRashed submitted a letter from Yemeni Human Rights Watch as well as a number of country reports that mentioned cases in which the Yemeni government detained relatives of opposition members while they searched for their primary target. A Yemeni journalist and human rights expert also testified at Mr. BinRashed’s hearing that Mr. BinRashed would more likely than not be harmed or killed if returned to Yemen. The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals both disregarded this evidence when it denied Mr. BinRashed’s petitions for protection.
 
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals erred when they did not properly consider evidence supporting Mr. BinRashed’s petitions. “The letter, coupled with BinRashed’s threatened arrest and the State Department’s finding that family members of criminal suspects are detained in their stead, provide evidence that BinRashed would be identified and detained upon return to Yemen, at least until his father could be located,” wrote Judge Williams.
 
Read the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007).

 
Read the Seventh Circuit opening brief, government response, and reply brief.