Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-10-05292/USCOURTS-caDC-10-05292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

~nit£b ~tat£z QIourt of J\pp£alz 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

Argued September 16,2011 Decided January 27,2012 

No. 10-5292 

ABDUL-RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULEIMAN, 

ApPELLANT 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT, ET AL., 

ApPELLEES 

Appeal frOlu the United States District Court 

for the District of Colmubia 

(No.1 :05-cv-02386) 

Thomas P. Sullivan argued the cause for the appellant. 

With hilu on the briefs was Som P. Dalal. 

John A. Drennan argued the cause for the appellees. With 

hin1 on the briefs were Tony West and Robert M. Loeb. 

Before: TATEL, GARLAND, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 1 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

2 

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: * Abdul-Rahman Abdo 

Abulghaith Sulei111an appeals the district court's denial of his 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention 

at Guantanamo Bay. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affin11 the district court's order. 

I 

Sulei111an's appeal challenges both the finding of the 

district court that he was part of the Taliban and its conclusion 

that such a finding justifies his detention. On this latter point, 

Suleiman argues that detention based solely on being part of 

the Taliban violates the Due Process and Ex Post Facto 

Clauses of the Constitution and is not pennitted by the 

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), § 2(a), Pub. 

L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001) (reprinted at 50 

U.S.C. § 1541 note). But we need not take up these legal 

argunlents because Suleiman failed to make them below. See 

Salazar v. District of ColUlnbia, 602 F.3d 431, 436 (D.C. Cir. 

2010) ("To preserve a clai111 of en-or on appeal, a party 

typically must raise the issue before the trial court .... 'No 

procedural principle is l110re familiar ... than that a ... right 

111ay be forfeited in crinlinal as well as civil cases by the 

failure to 111ake timely assertion of the right before a tribunal 

having jurisdiction to detenlline it. '" (quoting In re Sealed 

Case, 552 F.3d 841, 851-52 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal 

quotation 111 arks omitted)). In any event, our precedent 

provides a clear rule of decision: if Suleiman was part of the 

Taliban, he can be detained. See Al Alwi v. Obama, 653 F.3d 

11, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ("As this cou1i has now repeatedly 

* NOTE: Portions of this opinion contain Classified Information, 

which has been redacted. 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 2 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

3 

held, the AUMF 'gives the United States government the 

authority to detain a person who is found to have been "part 

of' al Qaeda or Taliban forces.'" (quoting Al Odah, 611 F.3d 

at 10)). 

The only issue we need examine then is whether the 

district court erred in concluding that Suleiman was part of 

the Taliban. That detenllination is a mixed question of law 

and fact. See Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 

("Detennining whether Awad is 'part of al Qaeda is a mixed 

question of law and fact."). The district couli's findings about 

what actually occurred - the route Suleiman traveled, where 

he stayed, and what he did - are questions of fact we review 

for clear error. Whether those facts are sufficient to conclude 

that Suleiman was part of the Taliban is a question of law that 

we review de novo. On both questions, we affinn the district 

court. 

II 

Although there was contested evidence about Suleiman's 

alleged relationship to Al Qaeda, the district couli based 

its decision on three unchallenged pieces of evidence: 

Suleilllan's own testimony before the district court; a Federal 

Bureau of Investigation field docUlllent sumlllarizing an April 

17, 2002, interview; and a Departlllent of Defense record of 

an August 19, 2004, interview. See Sulayman v. Obwna, 729 

F. Supp. 2d 26,42 (D.D.C. 2010). 

Suleilllan was born in Taiz, Yelllen, in 1979. Shortly after 

completing high school, he n1et a Taliban recruiter named 

Abu Khulud at a lllosque in Taiz. Suleiman claims that he did 

not know that Khulud was a Taliban recruiter when they met. 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 3 of 8
PUBLIC COpy - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

4 

Khulud suggested that Sulein1an travel to Afghanistan, where 

he could own a home and find a wife, and Sulein1an agreed to 

go. Khulud provided hin1 with a Yelneni passport, an airplane 

ticket to Karachi, Pakistan, and $100 cash. 

Once in Karachi, Suleilnan took a bus to Quetta, 

Pakistan, where he stopped for an hour at the Daftur 

guesthouse, which Khulud had told Suleilnan was affiliated 

with the Taliban. Suleilnan next traveled by car from Quetta 

over the border at Spin Buldak to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and 

stayed for approxin1ately two weeks at a guesthouse that he 

described as "the Arab house," which had "Afghan guards" 

and "weapons stored in a slnall rOOln." FrOln Kandahar, 

Suleiman traveled to Kabul and stayed for seven months at a 

guesthouse owned by a Yemeni national, Hamza Al-Qa'eity, 

who lived there with his farnily. While there, Suleiman paid 

for neither his food nor his lodging, Inade no attempt to find a 

wife or job, and did no work. He clailns he spent his time 

eating, sleeping, reading, and praying. 

Others living at the Al-Qa'eity guesthouse while 

Suleiman was there traveled to and from the nearby 

battlefront to fight with the Taliban against the Northern 

Alliance. Suleilnan hilnself twice visited an area he described 

as a "safe place" that was used by Taliban fighters as a 

staging area for final preparations before fighting at the front. 

On his first visit, which took place while he was living with 

AI-Qa'eity, Suleilnan stayed for seven days and fired a 

machine gun, although he clailns he did so only for 

an1usement. His second visit, which lasted twelve days, can1e 

as he was fleeing Kabul to escape aerial bOlnbing by the 

United States in retaliation for the attacks of Septelnber 11, 

2001, and the don1estic reprisals following the assassination 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 4 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

5 

of Northern Alliance leader Alu11ad Shah Massoud. During 

this second visit to the Taliban "safe place," Sulei111an was 

aImed with an AK-47. FrOl11 there, he l11ade his way toward 

Pakistan and into the mountains outside Jalalabad. He 

eventually crossed by foot into Pakistan, where he was 

captured by Pakistani authorities in late December 2001. Soon 

after, he was transferred to the custody of the United States 

l11ilitary, and in February 2002, he was sent to Guantana1110 

Bay. 

III 

Our task is to dete1111ine whether this undisputed 

evidence provides a legally adequate basis for the district 

court's conclusion that Sulei111an was part of the Taliban. We 

have previously stated that "the purely independent conduct 

of a freelancer is not enough to establish that an individual is 

'part of al-Qaida," and the same is true for being part of the 

Taliban. Salahi v. Obama, 625 F.3d 745,752 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Bensayah v. Obama, 610 FJd 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 

2010)). But the facts here show that Suleiman was no 

freelancer. 

There is no dispute that Suleil11an' s travel was initiated at 

the suggestion of and facilitated by a Taliban recruiter, and 

that he traveled a well-wo111 path to Afghanistan frequently 

used by Taliban recruits. We have stated that such travel 111ay 

indicate that an individual traveled to Afghanistan to join the 

Taliban. See Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8, 14 (D.C. 

Cir. 2010) ("[I]nterrogation reports of a third party concerning 

al Qaeda and Taliban travel routes into Afghanistan . . . 

although far from conclusive ... suggest[] that an individual 

using this travel route to reach Kandahar l11ay have done so 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 5 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

6 

because it was a route used by SOlTIe individuals seeking to 

enter Afghanistan for the purpose of jihad." (internal citations 

OlTIitted)). 

And Suleinlan did lTIuch lTIOre than travel the route of a 

Taliban recruit. He lived at the Al-Qa'eity guesthouse for 

seven nl0nths. Suleiman argues that he was allowed to live 

there out of charity, and that he did nothing more while there 

than eat, sleep, read, and pray. The district court did not find 

this explanation credible, and we find no clear error in its 

credibility determination. The Al-Qa'eity guesthouse was 

hardly the monastery for contenlplation that SuleilTIan 

suggests. His Taliban fighter housenlates used it as a base to 

travel to and frOlTI the battlefront during the tilTIe Suleiman 

was there. See SulaYl1'zan, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 47. We have 

previously held that "a voluntary decision to lTIOVe to an alQaida guesthouse, a staging area for recruits heading for a 

nlilitary training cmTIp, makes it lTIOre likely - indeed, very 

likely - that [the individual] was himself a recruit." Al-Adahi 

v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The sanle 

is true for a stay at a Taliban guesthouse. Suleiman was hardly 

stopping by; he spent seven nl0nths there. In addition, the 

ermTIent introduced a declaration before the district couli 

e serv as a an-spons 

guesthouse for Arab lTIujahedeen in Kandahar" and "was used 

as a transition point and in-processing location for individuals 

going to train at various training camps." Id. at 31. The 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 6 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORlVIATION DELETED 

7 

Finally, we see no enor in the district court's conclusion 

that Taliban fighters would be unlikely to allow an armed 

Suleiman to twice visit their staging area and be among 

fighters preparing for battle unless he was part of them. See 

Sulayman, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 52. 

From these undisputed facts, we conclude that the 

evidence on which the district court relied was sufficient to 

determine that Suleiman was more likely than not part of the 

Taliban. Because these facts alone are enough to support our 

conclusion, we agree with the district court that the 

government's other claims regarding Suleiman's alleged 

activities in Afghanistan need not be considered. ld. at 44 

n.14. 

Suleilnan also seeks leave to file a supplemental 

appendix that includes a new translation of his October 27, 

2004, Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) testimony. 

We grant the motion and conclude that there are no significant 

differences in the new translation of the CSRT that change 

our analysis. 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 7 of 8
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 

8 

IV 

F or the foregoing reasons, the order of the district couli is 

Affirmed. 

USCA Case #10-5292 Document #1356895 Filed: 02/07/2012 Page 8 of 8