Odesanya

MEMORANDUM

The government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner Omoyemi Omosalewa Odesanya after she overstayed her visitor visa without authorization. She conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA denied all forms of relief. We review the BIA’s rulings of law de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.2010).

1.On the asylum claim, Petitioner suffered past persecution in the form of efforts to force her to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM), and she has a well-founded fear of future persecution on the same ground. FGM qualifies as a form of persecution. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 794-95 (9th Cir.2005). The record compels a finding that the Nigerian government could not or would not control the attempts by Petitioner’s in-laws to mutilate her forcibly in the past and that she faces a reasonable possibility of their future efforts to mutilate her. Violence inflicted by family members can establish eligibility for asylum in this circumstance. See Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940, 943 (9th…