Selassie Atoklo, a native and citizen of Ghana, was admitted to the United States in 2014 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2019. In 2022, he was convicted of six federal crimes, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, wire fraud, and receipt of stolen money, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, classifying him as deportable due to his status as an aggravated felon. Atoklo applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that members of the criminal enterprise he had assisted the U.S. government in prosecuting would harm him and his family if he returned to Ghana. He cited threatening phone calls he received after his arrest and a letter from the U.S. Attorney noting his cooperation. The Immigration Judge denied his applications, finding insufficient evidence of future harm or government acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, and Atoklo petitioned the Third Circuit for review.
The Third Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion by Circuit Judge Hardiman, addressed two primary issues: the denial of withholding of removal and the denial of CAT protection. Regarding withholding of removal, the court applied the substantial evidence standard, asking whether the record compelled a conclusion that Atoklo faced a clear probability of persecution. The court rejected Atoklo's argument that the threats he received constituted past persecution or supported a fear of future harm. The opinion noted that the threats occurred while Atoklo was in the United States, not in Ghana, and that neither he nor his family in Ghana had suffered physical harm. Citing Chavarria v. Gonzalez, the court emphasized that while threats can be sinister, they do not support asylum or withholding claims unless they are highly imminent, concrete, or result in physical violence. The court found the BIA's conclusion that the criminal enterprise would not learn of Atoklo's return to be supported by substantial evidence, rendering his fear of future persecution not objectively reasonable. On the issue of CAT protection, the court analyzed whether Atoklo could prove he would be tortured and that the Ghanaian government would acquiesce. The court acknowledged a minor imprecision in the Immigration Judge's use of the term 'complicit' but found the underlying analysis correct. The court held that general evidence of corruption in Ghana was insufficient to establish government acquiescence without a specific link between the government and the criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the court found the petitioner's claim that the enterprise would learn of his return to be purely speculative, noting that his family remains safe in Ghana and the enterprise has not targeted them. Because a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that Atoklo faces future harm, the court affirmed the denial of CAT relief.
The decision results in the final denial of Atoklo's request to remain in the United States, leaving him subject to removal to Ghana. The ruling reinforces the high evidentiary bar for immigration relief based on threats from criminal enterprises, particularly when the petitioner cannot demonstrate that the home government is complicit or that the threats have escalated to physical harm. It clarifies that threats received while the petitioner is in the U.S. do not count as past persecution in the home country and that speculative fears of future discovery by a criminal group are insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence standard.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download