NEGUSIE

Page
285
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 285 (A.G. 2025) 	Interim Decision #4135
Matter of Negusie, Applicant
Decided by Attorney General October 22, 2025
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
The stay of the Board’s March 16, 2021, order in this matter is vacated, and Matter of
Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020), which held that the bar to asylum eligibility for
aliens who have engaged or assisted in the persecution of another does not contain a duress
exception, is now the operative opinion.
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
This case involves the persecutor bar under sections 208(b)(2)(A)(i) and
241(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C.
§§ 	1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 	1231(b)(3)(B)(i) 	(2018). 	On 	October 	12, 	2021,
Attorney General Garland directed the Board of Immigration Appeals to
refer this matter to him for review. Matter of Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 399
(A.G. 2021). 	The Attorney General’s order also stated that the Board’s
decision was automatically stayed pending his review. See id.
This matter has a lengthy procedural history. The applicant alien entered
the United States as a stowaway in 2004. See Matter of Negusie, 27 I. & N.
Dec. 347, 348 (BIA 2018). 	In a decision dated May 31, 2005, the
Immigration Judge determined that the applicant was ineligible for asylum
and withholding of removal because of the persecutor bar but granted his
application for deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 See id. at 349. The Board dismissed
the applicant’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s determination, see id. at
348, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the
applicant’s petition for review, see Negusie v. Gonzales, 231 F. App’x 325,
326 (5th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court of the United States reversed and
remanded. See Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009). Recognizing that it
is not “clear that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue”
and that the Board “ha[d] not exercised its interpretive authority,” the Court
remanded the record for the Board to determine whether coercion or duress
is relevant in determining whether the persecutor bar applies. Id. at 518, 522.
1 	The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States on Nov. 20, 1994).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 285 (A.G. 2025) 	Interim Decision #4135
page
286
On June 28, 2018, the Board issued Matter of Negusie, 27 I. & N.
Dec. 347 (BIA 2018), which, in an exercise of its “interpretive authority,”
recognized a duress exception to the persecutor bar. 	However, the Board
determined that the applicant did not establish that he was under duress when
he assisted in persecution. 	See id. at 348. 	On October 19, 2018, Attorney
General Sessions directed the Board to refer this case to him for review but
took no action during his tenure. See Matter of Negusie, 27 I. & N. 481, 481
(A.G. 2018). 	On November 5, 2020, Attorney General Barr vacated the
Board’s decision, concluding that the persecutor bar does not include an
exception for coercion or duress. See Matter of Negusie, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120,
125 (A.G. 2020). Attorney General Barr remanded the matter to the Board
to enter an appropriate order following updated identity, law enforcement, or
security investigations or examinations. See id. at 155. On March 16, 2021,
the Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial
of asylum and withholding of removal and his grant of the applicant’s request
for deferral of removal under the CAT. 	On October 12, 2021, Attorney
General Garland subsequently directed the Board to refer this matter to him
for review and stayed the Board’s decision, see Matter of Negusie, 28 I. & N.
Dec. 399 (A.G. 2021), but did not issue a decision in this matter during his
tenure.
In light of Attorney General Garland’s decision not to address the matter
further after directing the Board to refer the matter to him for review, I have
determined there is no further need for me to retain authority over this case.
Accordingly, I hereby vacate the stay of the Board’s March 16, 2021 order
and remand the record in this case to the Board for any further action as
appropriate. 	Doing so allows the 2020 Barr opinion, 28 I. & N. Dec. 120,
125 (A.G. 2020), to retake effect. For clarity, as the now operative opinion
explains, the INA’s bar to asylum eligibility for aliens who have engaged or
assisted in the persecution of another does not contain a duress exception.
See id. at 120. 	In other words, if an immigration judge finds an alien
participated in the persecution of another as defined by the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(i), the alien cannot present evidence of
coercion or duress to displace the bar and obtain eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See id. at 121. As written by Congress, the bar is
absolute. See id. at 125–26. The Department of Homeland Security does not
have any evidentiary burden regarding the persecutor bar. See id. at 154–55.
Instead, if evidence in the record indicates the persecutor bar may apply, the
applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that it does not. See id.