Rached Hamida Ben Hamida Sonia Houcine Ben Hamida v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \the other serious harm provision provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution[.]\
• stating that to establish eligibility under either prong, the applicant must first show that he or she suffered persecution on account of a protected ground
• stating that “an applicant who fails to meet the statutory eligibility requirements for asylum must necessarily fail to meet the requirements for withholding of removal,” and reaching the same conclusion with respect to relief under CAT
• rejecting IJ’s reliance on a discrepancy caused by the applicant’s confusion in identifying sexual assault versus sexual harassment
• requiring a more strict standard for withholding of removal than that needed for asylum
• “[Petitioners] have failed to offer credible evidence that they were persecuted in Tunisia. Therefore, their claim for humanitarian asylum must fail.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).