## Facts

- Nana Asante Dwomoh, a Ghanaian national and career soldier, escaped from Ussher Fort Prison in Ghana on December 22, 1986, and fled to the United States.
- He served in the Ghanaian Army from 1974, rising to sergeant, during a period when a military regime seized power and repressed political opposition, including reported summary executions.
- By 1985, after peaceful political change was effectively foreclosed, Dwomoh joined resistance activity, including efforts to free a friend from prison and to support a planned coup against the military government.
- On November 6, 1985, a day before the planned coup, a military patrol seized and beat him while seeking a confession.
- The government arrested him, beat him repeatedly, and imprisoned him for over a year without access to counsel, family, or friends.
- An immigration judge found him credible and the record supported a well-founded fear that, if returned, he would again be abused and possibly killed.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed denial of asylum, reasoning Ghana sought to punish him for treason (coup participation) rather than persecute him on a protected ground.
- Dwomoh sought habeas relief, challenging the BIA’s interpretation of the statutory definition of “refugee.”

## Issues

1. Whether the BIA’s interpretation of the Refugee Act categorically excluding a person who supported a coup from “refugee” status is consistent with the statute and congressional intent.
2. Whether, on the undisputed facts, Dwomoh’s treatment by the Ghanaian regime could constitute persecution on account of political opinion rather than legitimate prosecution for treason.

## Decision

- The district court reversed the BIA’s decision as a matter of law.
- The court held the BIA’s categorical rule barring coup participants from refugee protection conflicted with the Refugee Act’s text and legislative purpose.
- The court concluded that the facts could support a finding of persecution on account of political opinion, and Dwomoh’s claim could not be rejected solely because the regime labeled his conduct “treason.”
- The court granted habeas relief to the extent necessary to set aside the BIA’s legal interpretation and required further handling consistent with the court’s construction of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Refugee Act/INA, “refugee” status turns on persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, including political opinion.
- A government’s characterization of opposition activity as a criminal offense (e.g., treason) does not, by itself, defeat a refugee claim when the record indicates the state’s motive is suppression of political opposition.
- The agency may not adopt categorical exclusions from refugee protection that conflict with congressional intent and the statute’s protected-grounds framework; the inquiry must focus on whether harm was inflicted on account of political opinion.

## Conclusion

The court held that the BIA unlawfully interpreted the Refugee Act by treating coup participation as an automatic bar to refugee status and by discounting evidence that Dwomoh’s detention and abuse were tied to political opposition; the denial of asylum was reversed and the matter required reconsideration under the correct legal standard.


Dwomoh v. Sava, 696 F. Supp. 970 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)