|
MOHAMED HAIDER, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. |
|
On Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A96 163 022.
Argued: October 15, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 10, 2010
Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Mohamed Haider (“Haider”) petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief and the BIA affirmed on the ground that Haider could not prove that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground or that he would be tortured in Algeria. Having reviewed the evidence carefully, we hold that it compels a finding that Algerian police abused Haider because of a suspected political affiliation and that the abuse constituted persecution. We therefore GRANT the petition for review and REMAND with respect to Haider’s INA claim. At the same time, we DENY the petition with respect to his claim under the CAT.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REGINALD SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 07-00039-001—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.
Argued: January 21, 2010
Decided and Filed: February 10, 2010
Before: SILER, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Reginald Smith unsuccessfully sought to suppress evidence of a handgun taken from him by Cincinnati police officers as he was leaving an apartment building in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati at approximately 3:00 a.m. on November 21, 2006. The officers encountered Smith in the entrance hallway of the apartment building while responding to a 911 emergency call. The record reflects that Smith was not seized until Officer Putnick told him to stop and, at that point, the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had been engaged in criminal activity. Therefore, the district court properly found that the officers’ encounter with Smith did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We AFFIRM the district court’s decision denying suppression and AFFIRM Smith’s conviction.