## Facts

- Daniel Girmai Negusie, an Eritrean national, fled Eritrea and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States.
- In Eritrea, he was imprisoned after refusing military service and was beaten and subjected to harsh conditions.
- After about two years, Eritrean officials released him but forced him, under threat of death, to serve as an armed guard at the same prison.
- As a guard, he watched the gate to prevent escapes and monitored prisoners undergoing punishment, including exposure to extreme sun; he witnessed at least one prisoner die.
- He testified that prisoners were targeted on protected grounds, including religion and political opinion, and that he sometimes tried to lessen suffering (e.g., providing water).
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding based on the INA “persecutor bar,” but granted CAT deferral of removal due to likely torture if returned.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding that the persecutor bar has no duress exception and treating Fedorenko as controlling; the Fifth Circuit denied review on the same rationale.

## Issues

1. Whether the INA persecutor bar applies categorically to an applicant who assisted or participated in persecution under coercion or duress.
2. Whether the BIA erred by treating Fedorenko as foreclosing consideration of coercion under the INA persecutor bar.
3. Whether the proper course is remand for the BIA to interpret any statutory ambiguity in the first instance under Chevron.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the BIA and Fifth Circuit misapplied Fedorenko, which construed different statutory text in a different statutory scheme.
- The Court did not decide whether the INA persecutor bar contains a duress exception.
- Because the BIA’s analysis rested on a mistaken legal premise and did not reflect independent statutory interpretation, the case was remanded for the agency to interpret the INA provision in the first instance.

## Legal Principles

- Agency interpretations of ambiguous INA provisions may receive Chevron deference, but only when the agency has exercised independent interpretive judgment.
- Reliance on precedent construing materially different statutory language and purposes does not resolve an INA interpretation question.
- When a statutory term (here, “persecution” within the refugee definition and persecutor bar) admits more than one plausible reading on the precise issue presented, the agency should address the ambiguity first.
- A court should remand to the agency when the agency’s decision is affected by legal error that prevented a valid exercise of delegated interpretive authority.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the BIA’s no-duress reading of the INA persecutor bar was tainted by an incorrect view that Fedorenko controlled, and it required the BIA to reconsider—without that constraint—whether and how coercion affects application of the persecutor bar.


Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009)