2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-3-2009 

# Gh azi a skar v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4060

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gh az i askar v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 715. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/715NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_________ N o. 05- 4060

_________ M OHA M M AD S. GHA ZI ASKAR,

Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L FO R T H E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________________ O n P eti ti o n F o r R ev iew o f F inal O rde r O f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 22- 222- 833

___________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

(F il ed : Se p tem b er 3 , 2 0 0 9 )T h is is an a g g ra v a te d felo n y inv o lvin g fra u d o r d e c e it w h e re the lo ss to the vic tim e x c e e d e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . 1 2

OP I NI ON OF THE COURT M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge M ohamm ad G hazi as karpet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval ent er ed by th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls b a se d o n th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t a pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i on m ade G hazi as kars t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval t o I r an. G hazi as karal s o chal l enges the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o defe r r e mo v a l u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on as t o hi s chal l enge t o the B I A ’ s deni al of el i gi bi l i tyfor w i thhol di ng bas ed on hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on, butgr antthe pet i t i on and r emand t o the B IA f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s p e rt in e n t to h is C A T c la im . I . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , i ti s notnece s s aryt o r eci t e the fa ct s or his t oryof thi s case except as m aybe h el pfu l t o o ur bri ef dis cussi on . G hazias kar fi rs t c h a llen g e s th e B IA ’s f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l af

f irm in g th e IJ’ s ru lin g th a t h e is in e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l b e c a u s e o f

h is c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n f o r d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g . G h a z ias k a r w a s c o n v icte d o f th e u se o f

a tele p h o n e to f

a c ili tate d istrib u tio n o f

o p iu m , in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 3 (b ). G h a z ias k a r a rg u e s th a t h is c o n v ictio n w a s n o t a 1 “part i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e” a nd ther efor e di d notdi s qual i fyhi m forw i thhol di ng of re m o v a l. G h a z ias k a r a lso a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d b yc o n c lu d in g th a t h e is n o t li k e lyto3

be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o I r an bas ed upon hi s pas tpol i t i cal oppos i t i on t o the I r ani an re v o lu tio n a ryg o v e rn m e n t, his d ru g -re late d c rim in a l co n v ictio n s, a n d h is c o n v e rsio n to C h ri s tia n ity. I I . G hazi as karar gues thathe s houl d notbe di s qual i fi ed fora gr antof w i thhol di ng of r emoval t o I r an bec aus e of hi s drug- r el at ed convi ct i on. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge di s agr eed and conc l uded thatG hazi as karw as notel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e he ha d been c onvi ct ed of us e of a t el ephone t o fac i l i t at e di s tr i but i on of opi um i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 3 (b). T o b e e lig ib le f

o r a g ra n t o f

w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an a lien m u st s h o w th a t h is “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n thatcountrybeca us e of [ hi s ] r ace , r el i gi on, n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p o r p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ). A lien s a re d isq u a lifie d f ro m re c e iv in g su c h w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, h o w e v e r, i f

th e yh a v e b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a “ p a rt ic u la rl ys e ri o u s c ri m e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 )( ii) . A n al i en w ho w as convi ct ed of a n “aggr avat ed fe l ony( orfel oni es ) for w h ich th e a lien h a s b e e n se n ten c e d to a n a g g re g a te te rm o f im p riso n m e n t o f

a t lea st 5 y e a rs s h a ll b e c o n s id e re d to h a v e c o m m itte d a p a rt ic u la rl ys e ri o u s c ri m e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) . W her e an a l i en i s convi ct ed of a cr i m e w i th a l es s ers ent ence , the A t t orney G e n e ra l is n o t p re c lu d e d f ro m d e ter m in in g th a t th e c rim e is n o n e th e les s a p a rticu lar ly s e ri o u s c ri m e . Id . G hazi as karw as convi ct ed of us i ng a t el ephone t o fac i l i t at e the di s tr i but i on of4

opi um , a cr i m e w i th a maxi m um s ent ence of foury ear s . 21 U . S. C . § 846 ( 1983) . H e w as al s o convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyi nvol vi ng fr aud ordece i t , buti t s m axi m um sent ence d i d n ot r each the fi ve y ear threshol d in 8 U . S . C . § 1 23 1(b)( 3)( i v). W e m ust there fo re d eterm ine if th e B IA erred in af firm ing the IJ’s ru li n g that G h az iask ar’s convi ct i on i s part i cul ar l ys er i ous . I n r es ol vi ng thati s s ue, w e r emai n m i ndful thatany d ru g tr a f f ic k in g c ri m e is p re s u m e d to b e a p a rt ic u la rl ys e ri o u s o f f e n s e . M a tter o f Y -L , 23 I. & N . D e c . 2 7 0 , 2 7 6 -7 7 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ). W h ile w e p re su m e th a t a d ru g tra f f ick in g c rim e is a “pa r t i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e, ” an a l i en mayover come t hi s pr es um pt i on bys at i s fy i ng t he s i x cr i t er i a s etfor th i n Ma tter o f Y -L . 23 I . & N . D ec. at276- 77. T hes e cr i t er i a ar e : ( 1) a verys m al l quant i tyof contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ; ( 2) a verym odes tamount of m oneypai d forthe drugs i n the off endi ng tr ans act i on; ( 3) m er el yper i pher al i nvol vementbythe al i en i n the cr i m i nal act i vi ty , tr ans act i on, orcons pi r acy ; ( 4) t he abs ence of anyvi ol ence orthr eatof vi ol ence , i m pl i ci torotherw i s e, as s oci at ed w ith th e o f

f e n se ; (5 ) th e a b se n c e o f a n yo rg a n ize d c rim e o r te rro rist in v o lv e m e n t, di r ectori ndi r ect , i n r el at i on t o the off endi ng act i vi ty ; and ( 6) the abs ence of any a d v e rs e o r h a rm f

u l e f f e c t o f th e a c tiv ity o r t ra n s a c tio n o n ju v e n ile s . I d. H ere, the g ov ernm ent r epresent s w i tho ut cont radi ct i on that G hazias kar’ s offen se i nvol ved us e of a t el ephone a s partof hi s part i ci pat i on i n a drug tr ans act i on i nvol vi ng a $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 p u rc h a s e o f

ille g a l n a rc o tic s . R e s

p o n de n t B r . at26. T hati n no w ayunderm i nes th e p re su m p tio n h e m u st o v e rc o m e . G h a z ias k a r’s tas k o f o v e rc o m in g th a t p re su m p tio n is al s o notadvanc ed byhi s fai l ur e t o addr es s fi ve outof the s i x Y - L cr i t er i a. R ather , he m er el yar gues thathi s i nvol vementw as per i pher al . E ven as s um i ng ar guendo that i tw as,5

per i pher al i nvol vementi n w hatcert ai nl yappea r s t o be a pa rt i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e does notaddr es s anyof the r emai ni ng Y -L f a c to rs . G hazi as karar gues thatthe I J i m pr oper l yl ooked bey ond the s peci fi c cr i m e he pl ead g u ilty to a n d f

o c u s e d in s te a d o n th e m o re s e ri o u s c ri m e s h e w a s in d ic te d f o r. P et i t i oner B r . at22. I ti s cl earthatthe I J r el i ed part i al l yon char ges i n the i ndi ctm enti n concl udi ng thatG hazi as kar ’ s i nvol vementi n t he drug tr ans act i on w as “more than per i pher al ; he w as an ac t i ve part i ci panti n t he s cheme. ” App. a t 2 4 1 . H o w e v e r, g iv e n G h a z ias k a r’s f a ilu re to addr es s the Y

- L fac t or s , w e nee d notdeci de w hetherthe I J ’ s r el i ance on fac t s bey ond G h az iask ar’s p lea a g ree m en t w arran ts r eli ef. O n this reco rd, w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA di d noterri n aff

i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on thatG hazi as kari s di s qual i fi ed fr om r ece i vi ng t he b e n e f it o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. I I I . G hazi as kar ’ s chal l enge t o t he B I A ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o defe rr emoval under C A T , i s m or e tr oubl es om e. H e ar gues thathe es t abl i s hed thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d b yth e Ira n ian g o v e rn m e n t (o r its a g e n ts) if h e is re m o v e d to h is h o m e c o u n try . C A T p roh ibit s the rem o v al of an ali en w h o estab li sh es th at “itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” th a t h e w ill b e to rtu re d b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f th e g o v e rn m e n t if re m o v e d to h is h o m e c o u n try . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 ); Fr ancois v. G onz al es , 448 F. 3d 645, 649 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T or tur e i s defi ned as “an e xtr eme for m of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm entand does noti ncl ude l es s erform s of cruel , i nhum an ordegr adi ng tr eatm entor6

p u n ish m e n t.” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(2 ). C A T re q u ire s d e c isio n -m a k e rs to c o n sid e r a ll r el evantevi dence , i ncl udi ng ( I ) evi dence of pas tt or tur e i nfl i ct ed upon the appl i cant ; ( i i ) evi dence thatthe appl i cantcoul d r el ocat e t o a partof the countryof r emoval w her e he ors he i s not l i kel yt o be t or tur ed; ( i i i ) evi dence of gr os s , fl agr antorm as s vi ol at i ons of hum an r i ght s w i thi n the countr yof r emoval , w her e appl i cabl e; and ( i v) otherr el evant in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g c o n d itio n s in th e c o u n tr yo f re m o v a l. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (c )( 3 ). A n I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s “r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” B e ris h a j v. A sh c ro

ft , 37 8 F . 3d 31 4, 32 2-23 (3d . C i r. 20 04 ). W e up ho l d an adv ers e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n u n les s “ a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to concl ude t o the contr ary . ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A n “a li en ’s cr edi bi l i ty , byi t s el f m ays at i s fyhi s bur den, ordoom hi s cl ai m . ” D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H ere , the IJ c o n clud ed that there w ere “e n o rm o u s g ap s in the resp o n d en t’ s cr edi bi l i ty . ” App. at28a. T he I J di d notbel i eve thatG hazi as kar ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the r adi o pr ogr am, the “Per s i an H our , ” w as ant i - K hom ei ni and ant i - governm entbeca us e the b roa d ca st oc cu rred af

ter th e re v o luti o n . A d d it ion all y , the IJ d iscred it ed G h az iask ar’s e x p la n a tio n o f

w h yh e h a s tw o p a s s p o rt s . Ap p . at 29a. . H ow ever , focus i ng on any di s cr epanc yr egar di ng the pas s por ti gnor es the s er i ous nes s of hi s cl ai m and the pot ent i al forharm thatm ayaw ai thi m i n I r an i f G hazi as kar ’ s i nvol vementw i th the r adi o pr ogr am i s vi ew ed w i th di s favorbythe I r ani an r egi m e. T o hi s cr edi t , the I J conce ded that7

G h a z ias k a r’s in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e P e rsia n H o u r “ m a yin f a c t h a v e b e e n w h a t h e sa id it w as . ” Ap

p . at 31 a. H o w ev er, th e IJ a lso d ism issed the s eriou sn ess o f G h az iask ar’s i nvol vementw i th t he r adi o pr ogr am becaus e i toccurr ed bef or e the overthr ow of the S h a h ’s re g im e . G h a z ias k a r a rg u e s th a t h is c o n v e rsio n to C h ristia n ityc o u ld a lso su b jec t h im to to rtu re . H e tes tifie d th a t h e a tten d e d C a th o lic s e rv ice s a n d to o k c o m m u n io n a lo n g w ith his w i fe an d ch i l dren. T he IJ di sputed hi s “sudde n co nv ers i on t o C hri st i anity , ” beca use the I J bel i eved thatG hazi as karw oul d nothave be en abl e t o t ake c om m uni on w i thout b e in g a m e m b e r o f

th e c h u rc h . App. at31a. H ow ever , thatconcl us i on i s cl ear l ybas ed u p o n th e IJ’ s u n d e rsta n d in g o f p ra c tice s o f

C h ristia n c h u rc h e s h e is f a m ili a r w ith . T h e re is nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t o s ugges tthatC hr i s t i an chur ches i n I r an adhe r e t o the s tr i ct pr ot ocol s thatexi s ti n s om e chur ches i n the U ni t ed St at es . T he I J w as al s o conce rned that G h a z ia s k a r c o u ld n o t p ro v id e th e n a m e o f p a s to rs o r c h u rc h e s th a t h e a tte n d e d . Id . H ow ever , w e bel i eve thatthe I J ’ s appar entbel i ef thatG hazi as karw oul d nothave be en a b le to tak e c o m m u n io n in a C a th o lic c h u rc h w a s e rro n e o u s. A lth o u g h a n o n -C a th o lic is nots uppos ed t o t ake c om m uni on i n the C athol i c C hur ch, G hazi as karcert ai nl ycoul d have r ece i ved comm uni on i n anynum berof C athol i c chur ches , even though he i s notC athol i c, n o t b e c a u s e it is a c c e p ta b le b u t, b e c a u s e th e p ri e s t d id n o t k n o w h e w a s n o t C a th o lic . G h az iask ar a rgu es th at th e IJ a n d the B IA b o th “f ail ed to co n side r th e c o u n try condi t i ons i n I r an. ” P e t. B r . at29. Speci fi cal l y , G hazi as karpoi nt s t o “overw hel m i ng8

ev iden ce reg ard ing the p rev alen ce o f to rtu re in Iran co n tai n ed in the 2 0 0 2 C o u n try R e p o rt s ” th a t th e B IA d id n o t a d e q u a te ly co n s id e r. I d. T he 2002 C ountryR eport s poi nt t o ( 1) “s y s t emat i c abus es ” of human r i ght s i n I r an i ncl udi ng s um m aryexec ut i ons and the w id e sp re a d u se o f

to rtu re , J.A . 3 0 4 a -0 5 a ; (2 ) Ira n ian s re tu rn in g f ro m a b ro a d a re su b

jec t to s ear ches and ext ens i ve ques t i oni ng forevi dence of ant i - governm entact i vi t i es abr oad, J . A . 319a; ( 3) I r an’ s j udi ci aryi s “s ubj ectt o governm entand r el i gi ous i nfl uence r es ul t i ng in lac k o f

d u e p ro c e ss a n d f

a ir trials , J.A . 3 0 9 -a -1 0 a ; an d (4 ) th e re a re “ n u m e ro u s c re d ib le r eport s thats ecur i tyfor ces and pr i s on per s onnel cont i nue t o t or tur e det ai nees and pr i s oner s , J . A . 307a. T hi s r ecor d does notes t abl i s h thatthe I J orB I A adequa t el ycons i der ed condi t i ons in Iran b ef

o re rea ch ing it s co n clus ion that G h az iask ar f ail ed to es tablish tha t i t w as m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d u p o n h is re tu rn to Ira n . W e a lso th in k it a p p ro p ria te to tak e ju d icia l n o tice o f th e f a c t th a t cu rre n t ten sio n s in Ira n w o u ld o n ly exac erbat e w hatthi s r ecor d es t abl i s hes as an al r eadys hameful r ecor d of r es pect i ng hum an r i ght s . W e thi nk thatthi s cas e ca n bes tbe r es ol ved byal l ow i ng the B I A an o p p o rtu n ityto m o re c lose lyco n side r releva n t C o u n tryR ep o rt s in a sses sing G h az iask ar’s c laim . W e a lso th in k th a t th e B IA sh o u ld g iv e c o n sid e ra tio n to th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t it w oul d be more l i kel ythan notthathi s i nvol vementi n the r adi o pr ogr am, hi s r eturn fr om the U ni t ed St at es , and hi s cl ai m ed conve r s i on t o C hr i s t i ani tycoul d w el l s ubj ecthi m t o t he k in d o f in ten tio n a l m istre a tm e n t th a t th e C A T w a s in ten d e d to p ro tec t ag a in st.9

W e ther efor e r emand forthe B I A ’ s r econs i der at i on of G hazi as kar ’ s pet i t i on for re lie f u n d e r t h e C A T . I V . Forthe af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s G hazi as kar ’ s pet i t i on i n part , and r emand i ti n partforfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.