Fofana

MEMORANDUM *

Mohamadou Fofana, native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), who denied Fofana’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

Fofana testified that his father was shot and the rest of his family chased from their home during an attack by Revolutionary United Front rebels. Fofana argues that this attack constitutes past persecution making him eligible for asylum. To be eligible for asylum an applicant “must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(i). Fofana argues that the rebel attack targeted him and his family at least in part because his father was a diamond merchant, and further argues that diamond merchants are “a particular social group” within the meaning of the statute. Fofana also argues that the rebels targeted him, his family and his entire village at least in part…

dissenting:

I dissent because the IJ did not address Fofana’s claims that he was persecuted on account of two protected grounds: imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group. The IJ was able to ignore these claims because he also ignored the declaration of Mary Kortenhoven, an American missionary, who had resided in the same region of Sierra Leone as Fofana for 14 years. 3 Kortenhoven’s declaration stated that Fofana’s village and family were attacked on account of their support for President Kabbah and that the RUF rebels viewed the villagers as enemies.

By ignoring this evidence, the IJ, like the majority, failed to recognize that this is a mixed motive case. While it is true that the RUF rebels may have been motivated by a “get rich quick” desire and general lawlessness, as outlined by the majority, “mixed motives ... do not defeat an asylum claim.” Garcm-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th Cir.2004). “A *229 persecutor may have multiple motives for inflicting harm on an asylum applicant. As long as the applicant produces evidence from which it is reasonable to believe that the persecutor’s action was motivated, at least in part, by a…