Home

KONE v. HOLDER

26.02.10

Based on female genital mutilation, conscientious, ethnic and political persecution, and Kone's fears that her daughters would be forcibly subjected to genital mutilation against Kone's wishes if she were removed. See In re Kone , A98-977-450 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2008), aff'g A98-977-450 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. Big apple Apr. 11, 2006). We find that the agency doubly erred in its treatment of Kone's voluntary return trips to Côte d'Ivoire and that these errors compel a remand. First, the operation inappropriately rebutted the presumption of future persecution to which Kone was entitled based solely on Kone's intentional return trips to her native country. Second, even if the burden were on Kone to prove a likelihood of later persecution, the agency's adverse credibility determination on this point is corrupted by reliance upon an erroneous unbiased finding and the failure to adequately consider the relevant circumstances. Because we cannot predict with confidence that the agency would reach the same development on remand absent these errors, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand the happening for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we note that on remand, the parties and the agency may wish to consideration Kone's eligibility for asylum without regard to a well-founded fear of future persecution under the portion of the asylum statute a lot referred to as "humanitarian asylum." See Jalloh v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir. 2007).

Source: Leagle.com