← United States · 2016

witharrow.ai/volatility-index/united-states/fcp5-0a36a8d22170f577e448

BIA Precedent Matter of M-H-Z- (No Duress Exception to Material Support Bar)

Validated finding · five-country-2010-20260922-v118-evidence-presentation-fix

CountryUnited States
Operative dateJune 9, 2016
CategoryAsylum or protection
Policy toolLegal interpretation

Policy effect

Establishes binding nationwide precedent that the INA section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) material support bar to asylum and withholding of removal contains no implied exception for support provided under duress or coercion. Phase scope: Immediate nationwide application across EOIR and DHS adjudications.

Conditions and exceptions

Validated condition or limit: Establishes binding nationwide precedent that the INA section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) material support bar to asylum and withholding of removal contains no implied exception for support provided under duress or coercion.

Official source excerpt

Quoted verbatim from the official source below. Ellipses indicate omitted text.

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3864 Matter of M-H-Z-, Respondent Decided June 9, 2016 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals The “material support bar” in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) (2012), does not include an implied exception for an alien who has provided material support to a terrorist organization under duress. FOR RESPONDENT: Anne Pilsbury, Esquire, Brooklyn, New York FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Anne Gannon, Senior Attorney … iv)(VI) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) (2012), includes an implied exception for an alien who has provided material support to a terrorist organization under duress. III. ANALYSIS The respondent has not challenged the Immigration Judge’s factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding her support to the FARC, but she argues that she was not accountable for her actions because she was under duress, namely the threat of death. She therefore asserts that she should be exempt from the provisions of the “material support bar.” We disagree. Section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the Act … and is barred from 1 The DHS has not appealed that determination by the Immigration Judge. 759 Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3864 establishing eligibility for asylum and for withholding of removal under the Act and the Convention Against Torture. Sections 208(b)(2)(A)(v), 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2); see also Matter of S-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 289, 290 (A.G. 2007; BIA 2006). Thus, under these provisions, any alien who has provided material support to a terrorist organization is subject to the “material support bar.” Ay v. Holder, 743 F.3d 317, 319 (2d Cir … duress does not excuse the majority of acts listed in the definition of ‘terrorist activity,’” such as murder). In drafting the terrorism bar for providing material support, Congress gave no indication that it intended to narrow the statutory definition by including an implied exception for duress or coercion. See Matter of S-K-, 23 I&N Dec. at 941 (finding that “Congress intentionally drafted the terrorist bars to relief very broadly, . . . and it did not intend to give us discretion to create exceptions”). Accordingly, we hold that the material support bar in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) of the … Act includes no exception for duress. See Sesay, 787 F.3d at 224 (“To read the statute in any other way . . . would contravene unambiguous legislative intent.”). Therefore, absent a waiver, an alien who affords material support to a terrorist organization is inadmissible and statutorily barred from establishing eligibility for asylum and for withholding of removal under the Act and the Convention Against Torture, even if such support was provided under duress. The Second Circuit has affirmed our determination that the respondent “provided material support to a terrorist organization” based on …
justice.govMatter of M-H-Z-, 26 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2016)Open official source
Retrieved from https://justice.gov/eoir/file/865856/dl?inline=

Review method

Two separate automated exact-claim source reviews

Automated source validation is not independent human legal review. The finding should not be treated as legal advice. Record fcp5-0a36a8d22170f577e448. Something wrong? Flag this record.