Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Negusie: The BIA Misread the Persecutor Bar by Treating Duress as Irrelevant

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 3, 2026

Negusie v. Holder addresses how the agency must interpret the persecutor bar when a person allegedly assisted persecution while acting under coercion or duress.

The applicant was forced to serve as a guard

Daniel Negusie was compelled to work at an Eritrean prison where detainees were persecuted. The immigration judge found that his guard service triggered the persecutor bar, denied asylum and withholding, but granted Convention Against Torture deferral based on the likelihood of torture upon return.

The agency treated Fedorenko as controlling

The BIA concluded that voluntariness was immaterial because it read Fedorenko, a case interpreting the Displaced Persons Act, as dictating the answer. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the same premise.

The earlier statute did not answer the INA question

The Supreme Court held that Fedorenko addressed different text enacted for a different purpose. Because the BIA believed itself bound, it had not exercised its interpretive responsibility or resolved the INA's ambiguity concerning coerced assistance.

The case was remanded without choosing the final rule

The Court sent the matter back for the agency to interpret the statute in the first instance. Negusie did not itself create a duress exception or prescribe its elements. Subsequent agency decisions and current circuit law must be examined before applying the persecutor bar today.

Key takeaways

• Develop detailed evidence of coercion, threats, alternatives, and escape.
• Do not describe Negusie as itself adopting a duress defense.
• Check the agency's post-remand rule and controlling circuit authority.
• Analyze CAT protection separately from asylum and withholding bars.