FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 92 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 96 -4 94 -1 53 EDOUARD ADRIEN, Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 1, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Edo ua rdAdri enpe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on th atva cat edth e o rd er o f th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) g ran ti ng Adr ie n wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t Tortur e an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Tre at m en t o r Puni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). Afte r rev ie w, we di sm is s i n p artan d d en y in pa rt Adr ie n’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. BACKG ROUND A. Prio r Con vi cti on s a nd No tic e to Appea r In20 04 , Adri en , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Ha it i, was pa ro le d i nt o t he Uni te d St at es . In 2 00 5, h is st atus was a dju st edto th atof alawf ul pe rm an en t re si de nt . By 20 09 , Adri enaccu m

ul at eda nu m

be r of cri m in al co nv ic ti on s, i nc lu di ng two co nv ic ti on s fo r fl eei ng an d e lu di ng a po li ce o ffi cer, i n v io la ti on of F lo rid a St atut es § 3 16 .19 35 (a); a co nv ic ti on forbu rg la ry of a n u no ccupi edco nv ey an ce, i n vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a St atut es § 8 10 .02 (4 )(B) ; an d aco nv ic ti on forth irdde gr ee gr an d t he ft, i n v io la ti on of F lo rid a St atut es § 8 12 .01 4( 2) (C). In20 09 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”) i ss ue d aNot ic e to App ear ( “ NTA”), ch arg in g Adrie n wi th rem ov ab il it y , pu rs ua ntto th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nat io na li ty A ct(“ INA”) § 23 7( a)(2 )(A)(i i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(A)(i i), fo r be in g c on vi ct edof t wo cr im es in vo lv in g m or al turp itud e n otari si ng ou t o f a s in gl e
2sc he m e o f cri m in al co nduc t. Subs eque nt ly, th e DHS fi le d asec on d c ha rg e o f

rem ov al , all eg in g t ha t Adrie n was rem ov ab le , purs ua ntto INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(A)(i ), fo r be in g c on vi ct edwithi n fi ve y ears of a dm is si on of a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e, an d fo r whi cha se nt en ce o f on e y ear o r lo ng er co ul d h av e b eenim

po se d. Atanin it ia l h eari ng , Adri enadm it te d t he factua l al le ga ti on s i n t he sec on d c ha rg e in th e NTA andco nc ed edrem ov ab il ity as a n a li en who was c on vi ct edof acri m e o f m or al turp itud e wit hi n fi ve y ears of a dm is si on . B. Appl ic at io n fo r Wi thho ld in g o f Remova l InFeb ru ary 20 10 , Adri enfil edanap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al
un de r th e INA an d C AT. Adrie n a ll eg edhe fear edha rm or m is tre at m en t i f returne d t o Hai ti be cau se th e Hai ti ango ve rn m en t d et ai ns all cri m in al de po rte es up on arri va l i n Hai ti , andAdri en , as a n Am eri can de po rte e, wou ldbe si ng le d o ut fo r ex cep ti on al ly hars h t reat m en t i n aHait ia n p ris on . Eithe r Adr ie n o r th e g ov ern m en t s ub m it te d t hi s d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce: (1) Adr ie n’s cr im in al hi st ory sh owi ng hi s af

or em en ti on edcri m in al co nv ic ti on s; (2) a New YorkTim es art ic le di sc us si ng th e co ll ap se of Ha it i’s m en ta l h eal th syste m aft er the 20 10 Hait ian e arthqua ke ; (3 ) Adr ie n’s m ed ic al reco rd s fr om hi s t im e in DHS de te nt io n, s ho win g h is di ag no si s o f ps y ch os is an d h is rece ip t o f ps y ch ot ic
m ed ic at io n; (4) a U.S. Depa rtment o f St at e 2 00 9 Hu m anRig ht s R ep ort o n Hai ti
3(“ 20 09 Co un try Repo rt” ); a nd(5) a U.S. Depa rtment o f St at e 2 00 8 Hu m anRig ht s

Rep ort o n Hai ti (“ 20 08 Co un try Repo rt” ). 1 C. Rem ov al Hea ri ng s At a M arch 20 10 rem ov al he ari ng , Adri entes ti fie d t ha t h e h ad“ m en ta l pr ob le m s” forwhi ch he was t ak in g m ed ic at io n a ndha d re cei ve d p sychi atric tre at m en t. Adrie n s om et im es he ardvo ic es , saw i m ag es an d fe ltde pr es se d. Th e vo ic es to ldAdri ento ki ll hi m se lf b ecau se “ th ey ne ed [ed ] [h im ] to co m e an d l iv e wit h t he m .” As a re su lt , th e IJ co nt in ue d re m ov al pro ceed in gs to all ow ev id en ce of Adri en ’s m en ta l co nd it io n t o b e g athe red
. At a J un e 2 01 0 re m ov al he ari ng , Adri entes ti fie d t ha t h e b eg anha vi ng m en ta l p ro bl em s i n Hai ti , th athe was b ip ol ar an d h adtro ub le an swe rin g que st io ns an d t ha t h e sa w im ag es , in cl ud in g i m ag es of h is de ceas edfathe r try in g t o k il l h im
. Adr ie n b el ie ve d t ha t i f he returne d t o Hai ti he wou ldsu ffer , andpe rh ap s d ie , be cau se Hait i d oe s n otha ve faci li ti es to he lp pe op le with h is pro bl em s. If h e were pu t i n jai l, Adrie n wo ul d n otbe gi ve n fo odor wa te r, an d h e h adno on e in Hait i who co ul d b rin g fo odan d wat er t o h im . The p ris on als o wo ul d n otha ve m ed ic al faci li ti es to tre athi m . D. IJ ’s Orde r Although the 2009 Country Report was pr epar ed on Mar ch 11, 2010, it did not address 1 the J anuar

y 12, 2010 ear

thquake in Ha iti. 4The IJ f ou ndAdri enrem ov ab le as acri m in al ali en , pu rs ua ntto INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (A)(i ), (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ), (ii ), de ni edAdri enwithh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e INA, bu t g ran te d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r CAT. As to wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, th e IJ de te rm in edth atAdri enfai le d t o es tabl is h t ha t h e wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss . The IJ
ex pl ai ne d t ha t the factth atli fe wo ul d b e d iff ic ul t fo r Adr ie n i n Hai ti be cau se he
wou ldno t b e ab le to ge t m ed ic al care was n ota gr ou ndforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al
un de r th e INA. W it h re ga rdto withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT, th e IJ no te d t ha t Adrie n pr es en te d a“ di ffi cu ltcas e b ecau se we do n’t kno w whatis go in g o n i n Hai ti .” The IJpo in te d t o t he ne wsp ap er arti cl e, whi ch in di cat edth at , si nc e th e earth qu ak e, m en ta ll y il l p eo pl e were “ be in g l eftto fen d o n t he ir o wn.” Th e IJfou ndth atth e 20 09 Co un try Repo rt wa s o ut da te d, an d t ha t, b ecau se DHS hadha lt edrem ov al s t o Hait i af te r th e earth qu ak e, itwas “ no t ev encle ar tha t [the Hait ia n g ov ern m en t]
wou ldde ta in cri m in al de po rte es .” The IJ co nc lu de d t ha t thi s C ou rt’s d eci si on in Je an -Pi erre v. U.S. Att orne y Gene ral , 50 0 F .3d13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), es tabl is he d th atsev ere m en ta l p ro bl em s co m bi ne d wi thde te nt io n i n Hai ti anpri so n “ m ay be
en ou gh to m eetth e st an da rd[un de r CAT]. ” The IJ f ou ndth atAdri enha s “ m en ta l p ro bl em s” an d t ak es “ an ti -p sycho ti c
5m ed ic in e.” Ci ti ng Jea n- Pi erre , th e IJ st at edth at“pe op le with m en ta l p ro bl em s ar e

tre at edhars hl y

by the au th or it ie s i n [Ha it ia n] pri so ns . One o f th e rea so ns is th atin Hait i you h av e v oo do o. Th ey be li ev e th atpe op le are p os se ss ed .” The IJ no te d th atAdri en ’s m ed ic al reco rd s i nd ic at edth athe en ga ge d i n a nt i-s oc ia l b eh av io r, he ardvo ic es an d s aw pe op le trying to ki ll hi m . The IJ st at edth atHait ia n p ris on of fic ia ls “ do n’t h av e th e m ed ic in es to gi ve ” th e m en ta ll y il l an d t ha t Adrie n m ig ht actup witho utm ed ic at io n. Ackno wled gi ng th atth e “ de ci si on [was ] ha rdto m ak e in a va cuum ,” th e IJ de ci de d t o “ err o n t he si de of h um an it ari an is m ” an d fo un d th atAdri enha d m etth e st an da rdforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT. E. BI A’s Dec is io n Vac at in g th e IJ ’s Orde r Adr ie n d idno t ap pe al th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Th e g ov ern m en t, h owe ve r, ap pe al edth e IJ ’s gra ntof wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r CAT. Am on g o th er th in gs , th e g ov ern m en t ar gu edth at(1) Adri enfai le d t o s ho w he wo ul d b e subjec t to to rtu re i n Hai ti or a ny nex us be twee n h is m en ta l i ll ne ss an d b ei ng subjec t t o to rtu re, an d (2 ) th e IJ ha d m is ap pl ie d J ean -Pi erre . The BIA su st ai ne d the go ve rn m en t’s ap pe al , vac at edth e IJ ’s gra ntof wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT, an d re in st at edth e IJ ’s rem ov al ord er. Bec au se th e IJ di d n otm ak e a cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, t he BIA p res um edAdri en was cred ib le . The BI A als o fo un d t ha t the IJ’s fi nd in gs of f act—t ha t Adrie n was
6m en ta ll y

il l an d tha t treat m en t fo r m en ta l i ll ne ss inHait i was no t av ai labl e—we re no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Non ethe le ss , th e BIA d et erm in edth atth e IJ “ co nc lu de d,

2 in co rrec tl y , th at[Adr ie n] was el ig ib le forpro te ct io n u nd er the Co nv en ti on Agai ns t Tortur e.” The BIA ex pl ai ne d tha t the IJ h ad“ st ru ng to ge th er a s eri es of s up po si ti on s ab ou t wh atm ig htbe th e si tu at io n i n Hai ti on ce the co un try [was] su ffi ci en tl y st ab il iz edforde po rta ti on s t o re su m e.” Sp eci fic al ly, th e IJass um edth atAdri en wou ldco m e in co nt actwith Hai ti anau th or it ie s ev enth ou gh th ere was no ev id en ce th atAdri enwou ldbe arre st edor k ep t i n jai l as a cri m in al de po rte e. The BI A 3
co nc lu de d t ha t the IJ i m

pr op erl y rel ie d o n J ean -Pi erre as e vi de nc e th atall m en ta ll y il l p eo pl e wil l b e to rtu redinHait i an d t ha t J ean -Pi erre in st eadst an ds for th e ge ne ral pro po si ti on th ateachap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve th athe wil l b e si ng le d o utfor to rtu re. Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t Adrie n h adno t m ethi s b ur de n t o sh ow i t was m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe pe rs on al ly w ou ldbe to rtu redby the The 2009 Country

Report indicated that due to widespre ad pover ty and a shor

tag e of 2 public service s, people with phy sical and me ntal disabiliti es we re se vere ly disadvantag ed in Haiti. Howeve r, there wer e no reports of discrimination by the g overnme nt ag ainst the disabled or of a buse in mental hea lth facilities. Acc ordingto the 2008 and 2009 Country Reports, repatriated Ha itians were detained 3 “upon their r eturn for

approximately

two wee ks.” The 2009 r eport de scribed this dete ntion as “administrative qua

rantine” for r eturningcitizens who “had loca l criminal cha rg es pendingor when loca l family

members c ould not be located.” The Ha itian gove rnment wa s trying to improve these r eturne es’ r elea se time to ten day s or less. Although Adrien c laimed he ha s no family in Haiti, he has not cla imed, much less prove d, that he has loc al criminal charg es aw aiting him in Haiti. 7Hait ia n g ov ern m en t “ be cau se he di d n otsh ow t ha t i t was m or e li ke ly tha n n otth at

he wou ldbe de ta in edan d wo ul d b e si ng le d o utfor to rtu re.” Adrie n fi le d t hi s pe ti ti on forrev ie w. II . DISCUSSI ON A. Ju ri sd ic tio n to Revi ew CAT Cla im On ap pe al , Adri enarg ue s t ha t the BIA erre d i n v acat in g t he IJ’s o rd er gr an ti ng hi m

withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT. Spe ci fic al ly, Adr ie n a rg ue s 4 th athi s ev id en ce s ho wedhe m or e li ke ly than n otwou ldbe subjec te d t o t ortu re i f he were re tu rn edto Hait i. We con cl ud e, ho wev er, tha t we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Adri en ’s CAT clai m . 5 Und er the INA, fed eral co urts lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew fi na l o rd ers of
rem ov al “ ag ai ns t an ali enwho is rem ov ab le by reaso n o f ha vi ng co m m it te d” a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e, ex cep t t o t he ex te ntth e al ie n ra is es

“ co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f la w.” INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (C), (D) 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(C) , (D). Whe re s uc h acri m in al ali enrai se s a c on st itut io na l cl ai m or
To the extent Adrien’s ope ning brief c halleng es the IJ ’s denial of his request for 4 withholding of r emoval under the I NA and a rgues that he showe d a patter n or pra ctice of perse cution of the menta lly ill by Haitian jail offic ials, Adrien f ailed to exhaust this claim with the B IA, and we lack jurisdiction to revie w it. See Amaya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 2006). We reviewde novo issues of subjec t matter jurisdiction. Amaya-Artunduag a, 463 F .3d 5 at 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). 8qu es ti on of l aw, we do no t h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e fac tu al de te rm in at io ns

m ad e b y th e IJ or t he BIA, bu t we re ta injuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e ap pl ic at io n o f th os e u nd is pu te d fa ct s t o aleg al st an da rd . Jea n- Pi erre v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 00 F.3 d 1 31 5, 1 32 0- 22 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). Thu s, we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a cla im th ata pa rti cu la r se t o f fac ts m eet s t he leg al de fin it io n o f to rtu re u nd er CAT. Id . at 13 22 . But , we lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew “ th e ad m in is tra ti ve factfin di ng s o f th e IJor t he BIA as to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ali en ’s evi de nc e an d t he li ke li ho odth at th e al ie n wi ll be to rtu redif re tu rn edto th e co un try in que st io n.” Sin gh v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 61 F.3d12 75 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Adr ie n a dm it s h e is anali enrem ov ab le by virtue of h is pri or co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e. As s uc h, we h av e juri sd ic ti on on ly to the ex te nt Adr ie n ra is es a co lo rab le co ns ti tu ti on al cla im or aqu es ti on of l aw. See INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (C), (D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(C) , (D). Adri enarg ue s, l ik e th e al ie n i n Si ng h, tha t h is ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th athe m or e li ke ly tha n n otwil l b e to rtu redinHait i. Thu s, Adrie n d oe s n otrai se a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im or aqu es ti on of law. See Sin gh , 56 1 F .3dat 1 28 1 (e xp la in in g tha t an ali enwho “ m erel y arg ue s th athe sh owe d t ha t i t was m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldsu fferto rtu re upo n return t o J am ai ca” d oe s n otfal l u nd er the “ co ns ti tu ti on al cla im or que st io n o f la w”
ex cep ti on in INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D)). Acco rd in gl y , we
9di sm is s Adrie n’s p et it io n fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n t o the ex te nthe ch al le ng es th e

BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t h e fai le d t o s ho w a li ke li ho odth athe wou ldbe to rtu red
. B. BI A’s S ta nda rd o f Rev ie w Adr ie n a ls o a rg ue s t ha t the BIA erro ne ou sl y va cat edth e IJ ’s ord er u si ng a de no vo st an da rdof r ev ie w rathe r th ana cl ear e rro r st an da rd . W e ret ai n juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th is leg al qu es ti on . See INA § 24 2( a)(2 )(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(D). Co nt rary to Adrie n’s ar gu m en t, the BIA d idno t err in co nduc ti ng a de no vo rev ie w of wh ethe r Adr ie n m ethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r CAT rel ie f. Altho ug h t he BIA m us t re vi ew anIJ’s fi nd in gs of f actfor cle ar erro r, 8 C .F.R. § 1 00 3.1 (d )(3 )(i ), it“ m ay rev ie w qu es ti on s o f la w, di sc ret io n, an d ju dg m en t, an d a ll ot he r is su es in ap pe al s fr om

de ci si on s o f [the IJ] de no vo .” Id . § 1 00 3( d) (3 )(i i). In in te rp ret in g 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 (d )(3 ), th e BIA h as co nc lu de d t ha t i t re vi ews de no vo th e IJ ’s

“ ap pl ic at io n o f a p art ic ul ar s ta nd ardof l aw to th os e fac ts ” an d m ay “ co nc lu de th at th e fo un da ti on forth e [IJ ’s] leg al co nc lu si on s was in su ffi ci en t o r ot he rwis e n ot supp orte d b y

th e ev id en ce o f rec or d.” In re A-S-B- , 24 I.&N. Dec. 4 93 , 49 6, 4 97 (BIA 2 00 8) (ap pl y in g d e n ov o re vi ew to whet he r al ie n e st ab li sh edfutur e pe rs ecu ti on forpu rp os es of wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r INA); see als o H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 2 5 I.& N. Dec. 20 9, 2 12 -1 3 (B IA 20 10 ) (ap pl y in g d e n ov o re vi ew to
10whe th er al ie n e st ab li sh edfutur e p ers ecu ti on forpu rp os es of a sylum ). 6

Here, the BIA acc ep te d Adrie n’s t es ti m on y as c red ib le an d c on cl ud edth at th e IJ ’s factfin di ng s wer e n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. Th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t the se ad jud ic at edfact s wer e in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for CAT rel ie f be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t Hai ti anoff ic ia ls were l ik el y

to de ta in Adri enat a ll aft er th e earth qu ak e an d t hu s i t was sp ecu la ti on whet he r Adr ie n wo ul d l ik el y be
subjec te d t o c on di ti on s i n aHait ia n p ris on th atam ou nt edto to rtu re. W e fi ndno erro r inth e BIA’s ap pl ic at io n o f de no vo rev ie w. DISMI SSED I N PART; DENIED I N PART.

Adrien doe s not argue that the a g ency ’s interpre tation of its own regulations is not 6 entitled to defe renc e. See A ssa’a d v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F .3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that we defe r to the ag ency ’s “inter preta tion of its own regulations unless that interpre tation is plainly

err oneous or inconsistent with the re gulation”).

11