Attorney General Garland rules in Matter of Negusie that Persecutor Bar contains no exceptions for duress or coercion

Facts: The applicant, Daniel Girmai Negusie, entered the U.S. as a stowaway in 2004. In 2005, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to the persecutor bar (for assisting in persecution in Eritrea), but granted a deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision in 2007. The Fifth Circuit denied review. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in 2009 (Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511), directing the BIA to determine whether duress or coercion is an exception to the persecutor bar. In 2018, the BIA recognized a duress exception but found that Negusie did not qualify. Attorney General Barr vacated the BIA’s 2018 decision in 2020, ruling no duress exception exists (Matter of Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120). The BIA dismissed Negusie’s appeal in March 2021, affirming denial of asylum/withholding and granting CAT deferral. Attorney General Garland referred the case to himself in October 2021 and stayed the BIA’s order but took no further action.

Issue: Whether the persecutor bar under INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(i) and 241(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") contains an exception for duress or coercion?

Law: The persecutor bar under INA §§ 208(b)(2)(A)(i) and 241(b)(3)(B)(i) renders an alien ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal if there is evidence they ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Decision: On October 22, 2025, the Attorney General vacated the stay of the BIA’s March 16, 2021 order. Therefore, Matter of Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020) (Barr opinion) is now the operative decision.  The “persecutor bar” is absolute and contains no exception for duress or coercion, and applies even if participation was involuntary. The burden is entirely on the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bar does not apply if any evidence suggests it might; the government has no burden to establish its applicability.

Citation: 29 I&N Dec. 285 (A.G. 2025)

Public Access Link: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1416586/dl?inline

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nebraska Court Mandates USCIS Approve Journalist’s EB-1A After Calling Agency's Process Arbitrary and Unlawful

Image
The case, Mukherji v. Miller , No. 4:24-CV-3170 (D. Neb. Jan. 28, 2026), involves plaintiff Anahita Mukherji, an Indian national and journalist, who filed a Form I-140 immigrant petition for alien worker seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under the EB-1A category pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). Mukherji submitted her petition on March 8, 2024, self-petitioning based on her accomplishments in journalism. To qualify for EB-1A, a petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that they are among the small percentage at the very top of their field. The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) require evidence of either a one-time major international award or at least three of ten specified criteria, such as published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications, original contributions of major significance, authorship of scholarly articles, judging the work of others, and high salary...
Read more

UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)’s Decision in the matter of Da Silva Pinho

Image
Facts: Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho, a Portuguese national born on February 15, 1988, entered the UK in August 2009 at age 21 with his parents. He was granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (“EUSS”) on November 19, 2019, which expired on November 20, 2024. On October 20, 2021, he applied for settled status under the EUSS. His criminal record includes: a 2011 caution for threatening behavior; a 2013 caution for theft; a 2015 conviction for battery (community order and restraining order); a 2017 conviction for property destruction (conditional discharge); and a 2023 conviction for three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (20 months' imprisonment, restraining order until 2028). On November 15, 2023, the Secretary of State issued a Stage 1 Deportation Decision Notice. On January 16, 2024, a deportation decision was issued, refusing his human rights claim (with appeal rights under s82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (“NIAA 2002”) ...
Read more

Impact of "voluntary re-availment" UK & EU immigration laws

Image
In UK immigration / asylum law, “voluntary re ‑ availment” refers to a situation where a recognised refugee (or someone claiming refugee protection) has chosen to place themself back under the protection of their country of nationality (or former habitual residence). Paragraph 339A of the Immigration Rules (which implements Article 1C of the Refugee Convention) sets out the grounds on which refugee status ceases, states as follows: 339A. A person shall cease to be a refugee if: (i) he has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of nationality; or (ii) having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or (iii) he has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or (iv) he has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or (v) he can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recog...
Read more