2006 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
4-28-2006 

# S h ah 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3607

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_2006

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 2006 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

" S h ah v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1169. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1169T he H onor abl e D i cki ns on R
. D ebevoi s e, Seni orD i s tr i ct * J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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 os . 04- 3607 and 05- 1122
S E E M AB F AT I M A S HAH; KH UR RA M AI J AZ, P eti ti o n ers

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS A gencyN os . A 95- 148- 835 & A 95- 148- 836 Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on . D on al d V
. F erl i se

A r gued J anuary9, 2006

B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and

D E B E V O I SE , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 28, 2006)

Da v i d E
. P i v e r , E s q . ( AR GUE D) W
. J ohn V andenbe r g, E s q.2 L aw O ffi ce of

D avi d E
. Pi ver 150 St r aff

or d A venue, Sui t e 115 W ayne, PA 19087 C o u n sel fo r P eti ti o n ers J o n a th a n Co h n , E s q . ( AR GUE D) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce C i vi l D i vi s i on 950 Penns y l vani a A venue W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20530

- ANDJ o h n J
. An d r e , E s q . ( AR GUE D) D onal d E
. K enner , E s q. C hr i s t opherC
. Ful l er , E s q. T h a n k f u l T . V a n d e rs ta r, E s q . U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on B en Fr ankl i n St at i on P. O
. B ox 878 W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20044

- ANDC h ri s tin e A . S a n n e r, E s q . O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 17 Sout h Par k R ow , R oom A 330 E r i e, PA 16501 C ouns el forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge I . I nt roduct i on Pet i t i oner ’ s fatherw as ki l l ed i n col d bl ood, and theWe a r e t o d a yi s s u i n g a n o th e ro p i n i o n i n wh i c h we 1 c ri tic iz e J u d g e F e rl is e ’s c o n d u c t. See C ham v. G onz al es , N o. 0 4 -4 2 5 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e se o p in io n s a re n o t th e f irst in w h ic h w e h a v e d o n e s o . See , e. g. , Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 434 F .3 d 6 2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); F i adj oe v. A t t or ney G ener al , 411 F. 3d 1 3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 governm entconce des thathe i s dead. T hatm ur der– and w hat pr ece ded and f

ol l ow ed i t– i s the eve nton w hi ch herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ) w a s a lm o st e x c lu siv e ly b ase d
. In h is ap p are n t zea l t o d en yreli ef to p eti ti o n er, ho w ev er, the I m m i gr at i on J udge, D onal d V
. Fer l i s e, came t o the c o n c lu s io n th a t th e f

a th e r i s a liv e . [ T ]h e C o u rt is stro n g lyp e rsu a d e d a n d ten d s to bel i eve thatthe r es pondent ’ s fatheri s i ndeed a l i ve and i s notdead .
. . I f thi s i s true then the r es pondent ’ s ent i r e ca s e di s s ol ves r i ghti n fr ontof o u r e y e s . . . . the c a se is n o th in g b u t a f ra u d th a t is b e in g p e rp e tr a te d u p o n th is C o u rt
. (A p p . at 1 8 ; s ee als o id
. at 19 (“[ T ]he fa ct th at th e re sp o n d en t’ s f a th e r is in d e e d a liv e . . . is a v e ry , v e ryim p o rta n t issu e in th is case. ”). ) I n co ncludi ng that the fa ther i s al i ve, Judg e F erl i se ut t er l yi gnor ed undi s put ed evi dence of the fa ther ’ s death and s hor ed up hi s concl us i on w i th evi dence he had e xcl uded, e v id e n c e th a t a c tu a lly c o rr o b o ra te d th e f a c t o f th e f a th e r’ s d e a th
. H i s concl us i on “do[e s ] notfl ow i n a r eas oned w ayfr om the e v id e n c e o f

re c o rd a n d [ is] . . . a rb itrar ya n d c o n jec tu ra l in natur e. ” D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc)
. I ti s “more puzzl i ng than pl aus i bl e, m or e cur i ous than comm ons ens e. ” Id
. at251. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be gr ant ed, and the ca s e w i l l be r emanded forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. 1

I I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory Seemad Fat i m a Shah has a M as t erof A r t s i n I nt ernat i onal R el at i ons fr om the U ni ver s i tyof K ar achi
. She and herhus band,T he St at e D epart m entdefi nes M uhaj i r s as “U r du- 2 s pe a ki ng i mm i gr a nt s fr om I nd i a a nd the i rde s c e nd a nt s . ” U
. S. D e p a rt m e n t o f

S ta te , B ackgr ound N

ot es : P akis tan , avai l abl e at ht tp: //w w w . s t at e. gov/r/pa/ ei /bgn/ 3453. ht m ( l as tvi s i t ed M ar . 22, 2 0 0 6 ). A l though A i

j az i s nom i nal l ya pet i t i oner , Shah, and 3 w hathappene d t o herfatherand t o her , i s the dr i vi ng for ce behi nd thes e appl i cat i ons . W e w i l l , ther efor e, r efe rt o pet i t i oner in th e s in g u la r. T h e M u ttah id a Q a u m i M o v e m e n t (“ M Q M ” ), “f o rm e rly 4 know n as the M ohaj i rQ uami M ovement , i s a pol i t i cal gr oup w h ich re p re se n ts th e U rd u -sp e a k in g im m ig ra n t u rb a n M o h a jir popul at i on w hi ch mi gr at ed fr om I ndi a atthe t i m e the cr eat i on of Paki s t an i n 1947. ” G l obal Secur i ty . or g, h ttp ://w w w .g lo b a lse c u rity .o rg /m ili tar y/w o rld /p a ra /m q m .h tm (l a s t v is ite d M a r. 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). 4 K h u rram A ij az , are n ati v es a n d cit izen s o f P ak ist an . T h eyare both Shi ’ a M us l i m s and M ohaj i r s ( a/k/ a M uhaj i r s )
. Shah and 2 A i j az e nt er ed the U ni t ed St at es on O ct ober8, 2000 as noni m m i gr antvi s i t or s author i zed t o r emai n her e thr ough A pr i l 7, 2001. O n M ay25, 2001, Shah, i n addi t i on t o s eeki ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T , s ubm i t t ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum o n b eh alf o f h erse lf an d h er h u sb an d
. In 3 the appl i cat i on, Shah s t at ed thats he w as s eeki ng as y l um forthe fol l ow i ng r eas on: I am a M ohaj i r( I M M I G R A N T ) , m yfami l yand I w or ked forM ut t ahi da Q aumi M ovement
. I am [ 4] an acti ve m em ber of M Q M l adies W i ng . I am al so of SH I A s ect
. Fora l ong t i m e M ohaj i r s ar e bei ng persecut ed in K arachi -Pakis t an. S hia’ s ar e al so being kil l ed b yF anati c M usl i m s w ho are agai nst the exi s t ence of Shi a’ s i n Paki s t an. M yfatherSy ed A bi d H us s ai n w as ki l l ed by t err or i s ton 01- 10- 1995, he w as s hotdead bythe p erso n s w h o are p atron ized b yP o li ce . . . . T h ere5 w er e tw o m ai n fac t or s forhi s ki l l i ng, Fi r s the w as M ohaj i r( I M M I G R A N T )
. . . , Second H e w as S H IA , th e yto o a re b e in g v ic tim o f p e rs e c u tio n . S in c e th e k ill in g o f

m yf a th e r, m yw h o le f

a m ily w a s u p ro o ted w e c o u ld n o t li v e p ro p e rlyin Paki s t an, w e w er e unabl e t o l i ve i n anypartof Paki s t an as pol i ce a nd others ecur i tyagenc i es thr eat ened s ever e cons equenc es os w e tryname t he cul pr i t s . M yl i fe w as i n cont i nuous danger , I w as n o t f re e to m o v e f

re e lyd u e to c o n tin u o u s th re a ts bysecuri tyagen ci es as w el l as byfun dam ental i st w ho ar e bei ng gi ven ful l pr ot ect i on bythe g o v e rn m e n t. I n t he mont h of Sept ember2000 s ecur i tyagenc i es thr eat ened me and fa m i l yof s ever e cons equenc es i f w e tr yt o pr ocee d fur therforthe i nqui ryof father s ki l l i ng, s o m otherw ho i s veryups etaft er the dea th of m yfatheradvi s ed me t o l eave P a k ista n im m e d iate ly , so I h a d to lea v e P a k ista n in a h u r r ya s myl i f

e wa s i n d a n g e r , I h a d t o l e a v e my new l ybor n s on al s o. Forthi s r eas on I am see ki ng asy l um i n U nit ed S t at es. (A p p . at 30 0
. ) Shah s ubm i t t ed a s uppl ement al s t at ementi n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on foras y l um . I n i t , s he pr ovi ded addi t i onal in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e M Q M a n d th e v io len c e a lleg e d ly perpetr at ed aga i ns tM Q M m ember s bythe M us l i m L eague and the Paki s t ani arm y . “Fr om 1992 unt i l the pr es ent , ” s he w r ot e, “more than 17, 000 peopl e have been t ortur ed and ki l l ed. ” (Id
. at 1 5 3 .) S h e a lso sp o k e o f h e r f a th e r a n d h is d e a th : M yfatherw as a w el l

- know n, act i ve and r es pect ed u n it le a d e r o f

th e lo c a l c h a p te r o f

th e M Q M . M y fatherw as vi s i t i ng hi s fr i end, w ho w as a doct or a n d a l s o a M o h a

j i r , a th i s o f

f i c e . S u d d e n l y, m ember s of the I SI , orSpeci al Ser vi cesS h a h a lso p ro f f e re d lette rs f

ro m tw o in d iv id u a ls 5 cl ai m i ng t o be curr entorform eroffi ci al s of the M Q M
. T he let ters st ated , in su b stan ce , that S h ah is an ac ti v e M Q M m em b er, a n d th a t s h e w o u ld b e in d a n g e r i f f o rc e d to re tu rn to P a k is ta n . B eca us e the author s w er e notavai l abl e t o appea ri n court , and the st at em ents w ere l et t ers , no taffidavi t s, Judg e F erl i se concl uded thathe w oul d gi ve them w hat everw ei ghthe dee m ed a d v is a b le w h ic h , a p p a re n tly, w a s n o n e . See L iu v . A sh c ro ft , 372 F. 3d 529, 532 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] he fa ctthatthe I J never r efe r r ed t o the ce r t i fi cat es i n hi s fi nal deci s i on s ugges t s thatthey w ere n o t give n an yw eigh t i n m ak ing the u lt im ate d ec isi o n . ”). 6 I n t e l l i g e n c e , b u r s ti n t o th e o f f i c e a n d s h o tmy f a th e r a n d h is f

ri e n d in c o ld b lo o d
. (I d. ) A ft erherfather ’ s death, s he w as thr eat ened, fol l ow ed, har as s ed, and t ol d nott o att end M Q M m eet i ngs and nott o l ook i nt o t he ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s death. O n one occ as i on, fou r orfi ve m en, tw o o f w ho m w ere w eari ng po l i ce un i form s, bur s ti nt o herhous e, t ook hers even- m onth- ol d s on outof her arm s , and t ol d herthats he and he rfami l yw oul d be ki l l ed i f s he d id n o t s to p h e r i n v o lv e m e n t w ith th e M Q M
. O n A pr i l 21, 2003, Shah and A i j az appear ed bef

or e J udge Fer l i s e. Shah and one otherw i tnes s , M ohamm ad H us s ai n, t es t i fi ed, H us s ai n goi ng fi r s t
. H us s ai n w as an ac t i ve mem berof 5 the M Q M , b o th in P ak ist an an d in the U n it ed S tat es, an d S h ah ’s fatherhad bee n veryact i ve w i th the M Q M i n Paki s t an unt i l he w as s hott o death bythe I SI i n 1995. H e expl ai ned the d i f f i c u l t i e s th a tth e M QM c o n t i n u e s t o h a v e i n P a k i s t a n – M QM m ember s have s eat s i n the as s embl y , forexampl e, butar e not gi ven anyactual author i ty . A ccor di ng t o H us s ai n, Shah att ended M Q M m ee ti n g s in P ak ist an an d h as b ee n v eryac ti v e in G eh w are -a b a d , th e A m e ri c a n b ra n c h o f th e M Q M
. Shah then pr ovi ded t es t i m onycons i s t entw i th herpr i or s ta te m e n ts . H e r f

a th e r w a s a n a c tiv e m e m b e r o f th e M Q M
. A ft err ece i vi ng phone ca l l s fr om m en thr eat eni ng t o ki l l hi m , he w as s hott o death bythe I SI w hi l e vi s i t i ng a fr i end athi s m edi cal7 cl i ni c i n J anuary1995. Shah s t art ed att endi ng M Q M m eet i ngs w ith h er f

athe r i n 1 9 9 0 , an d w o rke d fo r th e M Q M ’s w o m en ’s w i ng educa t i ng w om en aboutthei rr i ght s . A ft erherfatherw as ki l l ed, s he bec ame m or e ac t i ve i n the M Q M , and s oughtt o have the men w ho ki l l ed hi m puni s hed. She began r ece i vi ng threa tenin g p h o n e c all s, so m eti m es a s m an yas th ree o r fo u r a day
. I n addi t i on t o t hes e phone c al l s , m en w oul d come t o the new s paperw her e s he w or ked and t el l the s ecur i tyguar ds that theyw er e goi ng t o ki l l herw hen s he l eftthe bui l di ng. O n J une 18, 2000, fi ve men br oke i nt o herhom e and gr abbed he rs on fro m h er a rm s. T h eyp u ll ed h er h air, threw h er o n the f loo r, ki cked he r , and cur s ed ather
. T heyt ol d hert o s t op w or ki ng w i th t he M Q M , and t o s t op pur s ui ng the men w ho ki l l ed her f a th e r. S h a h e x p re ss e d f e a r th a t sh e w ill b e k ill e d if f o rc e d to re tu rn to P a k is ta n . Shah and A i

j az of fer ed ext ens i ve document aryevi dence in s u p p o rt o f

th e irc la im s .

“ (a ) C o p yo f

1 -9 4 c a rd o f

R e sp o n d e n ts (b) C op yof P ri m aryR espon den t ’s [S hah ’s ] P assp o rt (c) C op yof S econ daryR espon den t ’s [A i j az’s ] P assp o rt (d ) B irth C e rtific a te o f

P rim a ryR e sp o n d e n t, w ith tr ans l at i on (e ) M a rria g e C e rtific a te o f R e sp o n d e n ts, w ith tr ans l at i on ( f) B i r th C ert i fi cat e of Responde nt s comm on chi l d, w i th t r ans l at i on (g ) P rim a ryR e sp o n d e n t’s E d u c a tio n a l C re d e n tials (h) The D aw n i den t i fi cat i on card [E ng l i sh new s paperw her e Shah w as empl oy ed] (i ) C o p yo f P assp o rto f P ri m aryR esp o n d en t’ s father (j ) D ea th C erti fica te of

P ri m aryR esp o n d en t’ s father ( k) Fi r s tI nform at i on R eportforPol i ce da t ed O ct ober1, 1995, w i th tr ans l at i on (l) E x tra c t o f

E n tries o f

D e a th R e g iste re d w ith8 H eal th D epart m entr egar di ng death of r es pondent ’ s father , w i th tr ans l at i on ( m ) L ett ert o D eputyC om m i s s i onerof K ar achi fr om A s s i s t antC om m i s s i onerdat ed J anuary11, 1995 r egar di ng R es pondent ’ s father ( n) L ett erof C hi ef A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi cer r egar di ng s peci al gr atui typai d att i m e of R e sp o n d e n t’s f

a th e r’s d e a th ( o ) Ar t i c l e s f

r o m The D aw n [

and the D ai l

y] Ma sh riq , dat ed J anuary11 thr ough J anuary31, 1 9 9 5 , reg ard ing d ea th o f P ri m aryR esp o n d en t’ s Father ( p) C onfi rm at i on of Pr i m aryR es pondent ’ s hi r e at Z i ber com and subs equentpayr ai s es (q) L ett er o f R ec o m m en d ati o n fo r P ri m ary R es pondent ( r ) L ett erof Ter m i nat i on forPr i m aryR es pondent ( s ) T ax i nform at i on forPr i m aryR es pondent (t ) T h e Da wn I nt ernetE di t i on A r t i cl es on Paki s t an dat ed J anuary5, 2001 thr ough A ugus t20, 2001 (u ) C o p yo f

P a k ista n H u m a n R ig h ts W a tch W o rld R e p o rt 2 0 0 1 .” (A p p . at 1 8 4 ); s ee E xhi bi t4 (Id
. at18 4-292
. ) J ud ge F erl i se ex clud ed d o cu m en ts ( a) thro u g h (n) o n the g rou n d that theyw ere no tcert i fi ed p ursuantt o 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 87
. 6(b)( 1)- (2) , w hich st at es, in re lev a n t p a rt: I n anypr ocee di ng underthi s chapt er , an off i ci al r ecor d orentr yther ei n, w hen admi s s i bl e forany purpos e, s hal l be evi dence d byan off i ci al publ i cat i on ther eof, orbya copyatt es t ed byan o f f ice r so a u th o riz e d
. . . . T h e a ttes ted c o p y , w ith the addi t i onal for ei gn cert i fi cat es i f any , m us tbe cert i fi ed byan off

i ceri n the For ei gn Ser vi ce of the U n it ed S tat es, st ati o n ed in the fo reign co u n try w h e re th e re c o rd is k e p t. N o ta b ly, h e d id n o t e x c lu d e th e n e w s p a p e r a rt ic le s a t ( o ).B eca us e w e ar e r emandi ng foranotherhear i ng, w e nee d 6 notr eac h t he ques t i on of w hetherthe tr ans l at i on and exc l us i on of evi dence i s s ues w er e pr es erved forappea l and, i f s o, w hether the B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r ej ect i ng the l att eri s s ue and d e n y in g th e m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n .

9 I n an or al opi ni on i s s ued atthe conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, J udge Fer l i s e found the t es t i m onyof both H us s ai n and Shah “t ot al l yi ncr edi bl e”; deni ed as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C A T ; and dee m ed the appl i cat i on foras y l um “ f riv o lo u s.” O n a p p e a l, th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) r ever s ed the fi ndi ng of fr i vol ous nes s , butdi s m i s s ed the appea l “bas ed upon and f orthe r eas ons s etfor th” i n J udge F e rl is e ’s d e c is io n . (Id
. at3. ) A pet i t i on forr evi ew w as fi l ed w i th t hi s C our tand mot i ons t o r econs i derand fora s t ayof r emoval w i th t he B I A
. B yor derdat ed D ece m ber29, 2004, the B IA d e n ied th e m o tio n s, a n d a p e tit io n f o r re v iew o f

th is deci s i on w as fi l ed as w el l
. W e cons ol i dat ed the tw o pet i t i ons for re v ie w . O n appea l , Shah cont ends , fi r s t , thats ubs t ant i al evi dence di d nots uppor tthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and deni al of r el i ef. She ar gues , as w el l , thati ncompet enttr ans l at i on bythe U rd u -E n g lish in terp re ter d e p riv e d h e r o f h e r d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to a ful l and fa i rhear i ng, thatJ udge Fer l i s e’ s deci s i on t o excl ude s om e of the document aryevi dence under8 C
. F. R
. § 287. 6 w as leg a l er ro r re q u irin g a re m a n d , an d th a t th e B IA a b u se d its di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed the mot i on t o r econs i der
. W e have 6 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ).

I I I . St andard of R evi ew W her e, as her e, “the B I A di r ect s us t o the opi ni on and d e c i s i o n o f

th e I J wh o o r i g i n a l l ya s s e s s e d [ th e ] a p p l i c a t i o n , we r evi ew the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” D ia , 353 F. 3d at240. W e r evi ew an im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t an d c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n s u n d e r a s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd
. See, e. g. , I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ); G ao v. A sh c ro ft , 29 9 F
. 3d 26 6, 27 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). In so doing, w e ask10 w h e th e r su c h d e ter m in a tio n s a re “ su p p o rte d b ye v id e n c e th a t a r eas onabl e mi nd w oul d fi nd adequa t e. ” D ia , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 4 9
. I f the I J ’ s concl us i on i s notbas ed on a s peci fi c, cogentr eas on, but , i ns t ead, i s bas ed on speculat i on , con

j ecture, or an otherw i se u n su p p o rte d p e rso n a l o p in io n , w e w ill n o t u p h o ld i tbeca us e i tw i l l nothave be en s uppor t ed bys uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd w oul d fi nd adequa t e. I n otherw or ds , i tw i l l nothave be en s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. I d. a t 2 5 0
. I V . Sub s t ant i al E vi dence – or Lack T hereof J udge Fer l i s e conde m ned, i n the har s hes tof t erm s , the te s tim o n yo f

H u s s a in a n d S h a h : it w a s “ to ta lly in c re d ib le ,” “t ot al l yi m pl aus i bl e, ” “s el f- contr adi ct ory , ” “i m peac hed, ” and, w ere m o re n ee d ed , it“[ d id] n o t m ak e a n ysen se.” (A p p . at 25
. ) B as i ng thos e conc l us i ons on num er ous s uppos ed i ncons i s t enci es i n t he t es t i m ony , he deni ed r el i ef. I ti s cl ear , how ever , thatthe b u l k o f th o s e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s – i f , i n d e e d , th e y w ere i ncons i s t enci es – w er e pi cayune i n natur e and thathi s deci s i on w a s, a t b o tto m , p rim a rilyb a se d o n o n e f a c tu a l f in d in g – h is err oneous concl us i on thatShah’ s fatherw as i n fac tal i ve atthe t i m e of the hea r i ng. T her e ca n be no di s put e as t o the i m por t ance thathe pl ace d on thi s concl us i on: “[T] he fa ctthat [ h e r] f a th e r is in d e e d a liv e . . . is a v e ry , v e ryim p o rta n t issu e in this case
. ” (A p p . at 19
. ) J udge Fer l i s e conc l uded thatthe fa theri s al i ve bas ed on o n e se n ten c e o f

th e tes tim o n yg iv e n b yH u ss a in a n d th e “ h ig h ly ques t i onabl e” de ath cert i fi cat es offe r ed byShah. O n di r ect exami nat i on, H us s ai n t es t i fi ed thatShah’ s fatherhad bee n ki l l ed, a n d a d d re ss e d th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g h is d e a th . H is tes tim o n ya s to th e se f

a c ts, a lth o u g h so m e w h a t d if f icu lt t o fol l ow , w as cons i s t ent
. O n cr os s exami nat i on, how ever , he s ta te d th a t S h a h ’s f

a th e r a n d m o th e r r e m a in in P a k is ta n to d a y . J udge Fer l i s e, under s t andabl y , s oughtt o r es ol ve the di s cr epanc y11 in H u s s a in ’s te s tim o n y . Q . B e f o re y o u w e re a sk e d sir, w h a t f a m ily m e m b e rs th e f

e m a le r e sp o n d e n t h a s b a c k in Paki s t an. Y ou s ai d s he has herbr other s and s i s t er s , s ai d s he had he rpar ent s ther e. A
. Y es. Q
. Y ou t ol d m e herfatheri s dead. A
. L ater o n I said tha t her f athe r i s n o t acti v e, he ’s al readydead , bu ther brother i s. Q
. S ir , y o u ’re n o t pay ing att en ti o n . Y o u w ere a sk e d w h a t f

a m ilym e m b e rs s h e p re se n tlyh a s in Paki s t an. Y ou s ai d herpar ent s , pl ur al , m eani ng f a th e r a n d m o th e r, a n d h e r b ro th e rs a n d s is te rs . T h a t w a s n o t m o re th a n f iv e m in u tes a f

ter y o u to ld m e th a t h e r f

a th e r h a d b e e n k ill e d . I’d lik e y o u to expl ai n t hatobvi ous contr adi ct i on. A
. W hen a gi r l i s m arr i ed heri n- l aw s ar e al s o her par ent s and herfatheri s dead butI s ai d thather br otheri s act i ve. Q
. Y ou s ai d t hats he had he rpar ent s and her br other , s i r . N ow y ou’ r e compoundi ng a l i e on a l i e. I don’ tappr eci at e i t
. I w antt o know w hyy ou s ai d herpar ent s ar e pr es ent l yi n Paki s t an w hen y ou t ol d m e herfatherw as dead. A . I’m n o t tellin g a lie. I sw e a r, an d I, w h e n I sa id herpar ent s I m eantthatheri n- l aw s , m otherand f a th e r in law , an d I a lre a d ysa id th a t h e r f a th e r is dead a nd herbr otheri s ther e. Q
. W el l , that ’ s r i ght , y ou s ai d herfatherw as dead a n d th e n y o u ju s t s ta rt e d ta lk in g a b u t h e r p a re n ts
. W hydi dn’ ty ou j us ts ayheri n- l aw s . W hydi d y ou cal l them her parent s. A
. T hi s w as m ym i s t ake. Q . O b v io u s ly. (Id . at 1 0 2 -0 3 ). In h is d e c isio n , Ju d g e F e rlise c h a ra c ter ize d th is t est i m on yas an “ex traor dinarycon tradi ct i on ” w hich the w i tness “tr i ed t o expl ai n . . . aw aybys ay i ng thatw hen he s ai d her par ent s ar e l i vi ng i n Paki s t an, he meantheri n- l aw s . ” (Id
. at 17
. )12 H e s ta te d th a t h e b e lie v e d th e w itn e s s “ s lip p e d u p a n d
. . . d iv u lg e d to th e C o u rt th e f a c t th a t th e re sp o n d e n t’s f a th e r is i ndeed a l i ve . . . . ” T h e o n lyo th e r e v id e n c e re lied u p o n b yJu d g e F e rlise to su p p o rt h is c o n c lu sio n th a t S h a h ’s f a th e r is a liv e w e re th e d e a th cert i fi cat es offe r ed byShah. A l though thos e ce r t i fi cat es ( al ong w ith m an yo ther d o cu m en ts) w ere ex clud ed b ec au se th eyw ere notcert i fi ed, J udge Fer l i s e neve r thel es s “perus ed” them, and found them t o be “hi ghl yques t i onabl e. ” (Id
. at18. ) H e s t at ed: T he dea th cert i fi cat e att ab J has abs ol ut el ynothi ng i ncl uded i n i tas t o the ca us e of de ath of the r es pondent ’ s father
. T he C our tfi nds thatt o be extr emel yunus ual and extr emel ybi zarr e. T he d e a th c e rtific a te a t L a p p e a rs to b e d e f e c tiv e . It i s vi r tual l yi m pos s i bl e t o r ead the ca us e of de ath and the C ou rtcann ot concl ud e from readi ng these document s w hyand how the r es pondent ’ s father w a s e ith e r k ille d o r d ie d o f n a tu ra l c a u s e s . (Id . at 1 7 .) P a re n th e tica lly , w e n o te th a t w e d o n o t f in d it “vi r tual l yi m pos s i bl e” t o r ead the ca us e of de ath att ab L; i ndeed, i ti s r athereas yt o concl ude, w i th s om e mi ni m al i nt erpr et at i on, th a t th e f a th e r d ied o f

c a rd iac re sp ira to ryf

a ilu re se c o n d a ryto a c u te h e a d in

ju ry a s a re s u lt o f

a f ir e a rm s in

ju ry. E ven i f ther e w er e no otherevi dence t o corr obor at e the tes tim o n yc o n c e rn in g th e f a th e r’s d e a th , itw o u ld b e e x tre m e ly di ffi cul tt o fi nd thatthe tw o cons i der at i ons r el i ed on byJ udge F e rlise c o n stitu ted su b sta n tial e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f h is co n clus ion that the f

athe r i s ali v e. W ith resp ec t t o H u ssain ’s
“ e x tra o rd in a ryc o n tra d ictio n ,” th e w itn e ss e x p lain e d h is m i s s t at ement
. D es pi t e J udge Fer l i s e’ s di s m i s s i ve t one r egar di ng th a t e x p la n a tio n , th e e x p la n a tio n w a s , in f a c t, q u ite re a s o n a b le
. A s forthe “que s t i onabl e” de ath cert i fi cat es , w e not e, as an i ni t i al m att er , thatJ udge Fer l i s e s houl d nothave i nvoked evi dence he excl uded t o underm i ne Shah’ s cl ai m s . C ert ai nl y , he s houl d not have s el ect i vel y“perus ed” the exc l uded document s , r el y i ng on the ones thathe fe l tunderm i ned hercl ai m , and i gnor i ng theB eca us e the new s paperart i cl es w er e notoffi ci al 7 re c o rd s, th e yw e re n o t ex c lu d e d w ith th e re st o f th e d o c u m e n ts u n d e r § 2 8 7 .6
. 13 m a n yo th e r d o c u m e n ts th a t co rro b o ra ted it. M o re o v e r, h is p ro b lem w ith th e d e a th c e rtific a tes re late d to a n in a b ili tyto under s t and the c a u se o

f de a th
. H e di d notappea rt o ques t i on, on the b asis o f th e d ea th ce rt ifi ca tes, that S h ah ’s fa ther w as dead, a n d c e rt a in ly th e d e a th c e rt if ic a te s d o n o t p ro v e th a t h e is a liv e . N eith er c o n side rati o n , o n it s o w n , w o u ld b e su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt J udge Fer l i s e’ s concl us i on thatShah’ s fatheri s al i ve, and the tw o t ogetherdo not“add up t o a t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s that s u p p o rt [ ]” th a t c o n c lu s io n . D ia , 353 F. 3d at251. “R ather , they ar e an a ggr egat i on of empt yr at i onal es thatdevol ve i nt o an uns uppor t ed fi ndi ng . . . . ” I d. W h e n o th e r e v id e n c e , w h ich Ju d g e F e rlise ig n o re d , is c o n sid e re d , itis c lea r th a t h is c o n c lu sio n is n o t ju st d if f icu lt t o s uppor t , i ti s ent i r el yuns uppor t abl e. Pi ctur es of Shah’ s father l y i ng i n a pool of bl ood on the gr ound w her e he w as s hot a p p e a r e d i n n e ws p a p e ra r t i c l e s a b o u tth e mu r d e ri n two new s paper s – Da wn ( an Engl i s h- l anguage new s paper ) and Ma sr iq (a n U rd u -la n g u a g e n e w sp a p e r), a rticle s a d m itt e d in to evi dence
. J udge Fer l i s e utt er l yfai l ed t o addr es s , oreven m ent i on, thes e art i cl es w hen di s cus s i ng w hyhe bel i eved the f a th e r is a liv e . O n e w o u ld h a v e e x p e c ted th a t, at th e v e rylea st, he w oul d have e xpl ai ned hi s r at i onal e fordi s count i ng them i f, in d e e d , th e re w a s o n e . I n addi t i on t o t he new s paperart i cl es , pet i t i oneroffe r ed document s corr obor at i ng the fa ctof herfather ’ s death, document s w hi ch i ncl uded a Fi r s tI nform at i on R eportforthe p o lice d e tailin g th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g h is d e a th (w ith tra n sla tio n ); a n E x tra c t o f E n tries o f

D e a th R e g iste re d w ith H eal th D epart m entr egar di ng hi s death ( w i th tr ans l at i on) ; and a l ett ert o t he D eputyC om m i s s i onerof K ar achi fr om the A s s i s t ant C om m i ssi on er r egardi ng his death. Judg e F erl i se excl ud ed these document s beca us e theyw er e notauthent i cat ed under§287. 6. 7 W e hel d i n L iu v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 2 F .3 d 5 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), alb e itW e off erbuta fe w exampl es . J udge Fer l i s e conc l uded, 8 as t o H us s ai n, thathe cha nged hi s t es t i m onyas t o w hi ch age ncy w as r es pons i bl e forki l l i ng Shah’ s father , and contr adi ct ed hi m s el f r epea t edl yaboutw hetherShah w as a mem berof the M Q M
. H e di d nei ther
. A s forShah, J udge Fer l i s e found a n i ncons i s t encybeca us e s he s t at ed i n heras y l um appl i cat i on that herfatherw as ki l l ed bec aus e he w as a M oj ahi rand a Shi ’ a, but 14 a f ter Ju d g e F e rlise ru led o n th e iss u e in th is c a se , tha t § 2 8 7 .6 “ is notan abs ol ut e rul e of e xcl us i on, and i s notthe exc l us i ve means of authent i cat i ng r ecor ds befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge. ” Id
. at 533. W e made i tqui t e cl earthatthe appl i cant s i n L iu sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ityto p ro v e th e a u th e n ticityo f th e ir document aryevi dence thr ough otherm eans . T her e i s no ques t i on thather e, as i n L iu , w ith o u t p ro v id in g a n o p p o rtu n ityto pr ove authent i ci tybyotherm eans , J udge Fer l i s e exc l uded document s that , i f authent i cat ed, w oul d have c orr obor at ed the t es t i m onyof Shah and H us s ai n. B eca us e the document s m aybe offe r ed on r emand and thei rauthent i ci tyr econs i der ed, w e nee d notdeci de w hateff

ecttheyw oul d ors houl d have ha d on J udge Fer l i s e’ s deci s i on had theynotbeen e xcl uded. W e not e, how ever , thattheys ur el yw oul d nothave he l ped hi m r eac h the re s u lt h e re a c h e d
. T he s tr ength of the new s paperart i cl es i gnor ed byJ udge Fer l i s e and the w eakne s s of the evi dence ci t ed byhi m compel the conc l us i on thatShah’ s fatheri s dead, a fa ctw hi ch now the g o v e rn m e n t co n c e d e s. A s to th is “ v e ry , v e ryim p o rta n t” f a c t,
“ n o re a so n a b le p e rso n ” w o u ld h a v e f o u n d S h a h a n d H u ss a in in c re d ib le
. C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F
. 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ); s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U
. S. at481 n .1 . S tate d so m e w h a t d if f e re n tly , this “ v e ry , v e ryim p o rta n t” f a c t is n o t s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . N orar e the handf

ul of otheri ncons i s t enci es i nvoked by J udge Fer l i s e t o s uppor thi s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons supp ort ed b ysubst anti al evidence; i nd eed, vi rtuall yal l of those “i ncons i s t enci es ” ar e ei thert oo m i nort o w arr antdi s cus s i on or ar e noti ncons i s t enci es atal l
. W e make one obs ervat i on, 8la te r c la im e d it w a s b e c a u s e o f h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e M Q M
. B utther e i s no i ncons i s t encybeca us e the M Q M i s a pol i t i cal gr oup thatr epr es ent s Shi ’ a M ohaj i r s . J udge Fer l i s e al s o m ade f in d in g s h a v in g n o su p p o rt in th e re c o rd a n d ig n o re d e v id e n c e in the r ecor d w hen i ts ui t ed hi s purpos es t o do s o. W i th r efe r ence t o t he form er , i tw as s heers pecul at i on t o concl ude thati tw as “ p ro b a b le” th a t “if

in d e e d a n yh a rm c a m e to [ S h a h ] o r h e r f a m ily ith ad to d o w ith a riva l org an izati o n m eti n g o u t th eir ow n fo rm of j us t i ce. ” ( A pp. at21- 22. ) W i th r efe r ence t o the l att er , the St at e D epart m entC ountryR eports uppos edl ycont ai ned
“ n o th i n g ” i n d i c a t i n g th a tth e p o l i c e t a r g e ta n d k i l l M QM m em bers orthat the g ov ernm ent s po nsors vi olence against M Q M m e m b e rs . J u d g e F e rl is e w a s w ro n g . 15 how ever . A s i de fr om the fa ctthatw e ar e ata l os s t o s ee the r el evanc e, m uch l es s the s i gni fi canc e, of anyi ncons i s t ency betw een Shah’ s t es t i m onythatherfatherw as m ur der ed w hen he w a s v isitin g a f

rie n d , w h o w a s a d o c to r, an d n e w sp a p e r a c c o u n ts th a t re f lec t th a t h e r f

a th e r w a s a p a tien t o f

th e d o c to r, n o t a fr i end, w e fi nd i tdi s turbi ng thatthe s ame new s paperart i cl es that Ju d g e F erli se f

ail ed to co n side r be fo re c o n clud ing that S h ah ’s fatheri s al i ve w er e i nvoked her e i n an att empt t o cr eat e an in c o n s is te n c yf

o r p u rp o s e s o f

u n d e rm in in g S h a h ’s c re d ib ility.

“ A lth o u g h w e d o n ’t e x p e c t an Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e to s e a r c h f o rwa y s t o s u s t a i n a n a l i e n ’ s t e s t i mo n y , n e i th e rd o we expec tthe j udge t o s ear ch forw ay s t o underm i ne and be l i t t l e i t
. ” Zhang v. G onz al es , 405 F. 3d 150, 158 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. N ordo w e expe cta j udge t o s el ect i vel ycons i derevi dence , i gnor i ng that e v id e n c e th a t co rro b o ra tes a n a lien ’s c laim s a n d c a lls in to ques t i on the conc l us i on the j udge i s att empt i ng t o r eac h. W her e, as here, an im m i grat i on j ud ge turns his back on these expec t at i ons and r eac hes a conc l us i on thati s not“s uppor t ed by s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd w oul d fi nd a d e q u a te ,” w e w ill n o t u p h o ld th a t c o n c lu s io n . See D ia , 353 F .3 d a t 2 5 0
. W e end bynot i ng w hatw e do and do notdeci de. W e fi nd thatShah’ s fatheri s dead, now an undi s put ed fa ctand one that16 w as vi r tual l yundi s put abl e bef or e now . T hatfac tw as the foundat i on on w hi ch the appl i cat i ons forr el i ef w er e bui l t , and J udge Fer l i s e r ecogni zed i t s cr i t i cal i m por t ance . W e l eave the eff ectof thaterr oneous fi ndi ng t o the B I A on r emand and l eave t o i t , as w el l , the ques t i on of w hetherpet i t i oner s , w i th the father ’ s death and the w i tnes s es ’ cr edi bi l i tyes t abl i s hed, have s a tis f ie d th e re q u is ite s f

o r t h e re lie f

th e ys e e k
. W e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , vaca t e the or derof the B I A and r emand t o the B I A forfur therpr ocee di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . W e u rg e th a t, o n re m a n d , a di ffe r enti m m i gr at i on j udge be a s s i gned t o anyfur ther p ro c e e d in g s . See Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d at627, 638 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Ko ry tn y u k v . A sh c ro

ft , 396 F. 3d 272, 287 n. 20 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[W ] hi l e w e r ecogni ze that as s i gnm entof an [ I J ] i s w i thi n the pr ovi nce of the A t t orney G ener al , i f on r emand an I J ’ s s ervi ces ar e nee ded, w e bel i eve the part i es w ou l d b e far bet t er s erved b ythe assi gn m ent t o those pr ocee di ngs of a di ffe r entI J
. ”) ( al t ernat i on i n or i gi nal , i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).