2005 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

11-23-2005 

# B utt v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4360

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B utt v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 179. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/179P 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



### No. 03- 4360

K H A L I D M A H M O O D B U T T , A 29 760 955; SI D R A D K H A L I D , A 29 760 957; A L I K H A L I D , A 29 760 959; A Y I SH A J A B E E N , A 29 760 956; W A Q A R K H A L I D , A 29 760 958; SA D I A K H A L I D , A 29 760 960,
P eti ti o n ers

v.

* AL BE RT O GONZ AL E S , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L

O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,
R es pondent
*Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 c , F. R. A

. P.

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N os . A 29- 760- 955, A 29- 760- 956, A 29- 760- 957, A 29- 760- 9582 A 29- 760- 959, A 29- 760- 960)

A r gued M ar ch 10, 2005
B efor e: R O T H and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges SH A PI R O , ** D i s t r i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember 23, 2005)
J ohn J

. Seehous en, E s qui r e ( A r gued) 1530 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 606 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102
C o u n sel fo r P eti ti o n ers Pet erD

. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al D avi d V

. B ernal A s s i s t antD i r ect or A ndr ew C

. M acLachl an, E s qui r e ( A r gued) O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044
C ouns el forR es pondent
** H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.A l t hough t her e ar e m u lt iple pet i t i oner s i n t hi s cas e, our 1 d iscu ssion ref

ere n ce s o n lyB u tt

. T h e o ther p eti ti o n ers a re B u tt ’s w i fe an d ch i l dren, w ho se cl ai m s for asy l um are deri vati ve o f his

. 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge
K hal i d M ahmood B u tt pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the deci s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi s cl ai m s foras y l u m , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”)

. T he 1 I m m i gr at i on J udge (“I J ”) pr es i di ng overB ut t ’ s cas e deni ed t he s e c l a i ms b a s e d o n h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a t Butt was not cr edi bl e, and t hatdeci s i on w as aff i r m ed w i t houtopi ni on byt he B I A

. B eca us e the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d, w e gr antt he pet i t i on.
I . F act ual B ackground & P roce dural H i s t ory
B u tt i s a n a tiv e a n d c it iz e n o f P a k ista n . F ro m 1 9 6 9 to 19 70 , he w orked full t i m e i n h i s fat her’ s drycl eaning b usi ness. S u b sequen t l y , he w orked there onl ypart -t i m e so t hat he c o u ld al s o w or k for t he Paki s t an Peopl e’ s Par t y ( “PPP” ), a p o l i t i cal par t y . H i s i nvol vement i n t hator gani zat i on i ncr eas ed overt i m e,4 a n d in 1 9 7 1 h e b e g a n w o rk in g f o r th e P P P f

u ll tim e . B u tt t es t i fi ed bef

or e the I J t hat he di d not r ece i ve compensa t i on fr om th e P P P , b u t h is f

a m ilyw a s su f

f icie n tly w e ll o f

f to a llo w h im to cont i nue t o w or k onl yfor the par t y . B ut tw as t he G ener al Secr et aryof hi s l ocal PPP w ar d fr om 1980 t o 1990. Fr om 1984 t o 1996, he w as a l s o a “Counsel or , ” w hi ch appe ar s t o be an e l e c t e d p os i t i on w i t hi n the PPP.

B ut tt es t i fi ed that , as G en e r a l Se cr et ary , he col l ect ed dues forthe PPP and hel d par t ym eet i ngs at hi s hom e. H e s t at ed that t he P PP exi s t ed t o hel p l ocal peopl e s ol ve thei rpr obl ems and th a t itw a n ted “ e v e r yo n e [ to ] . . . h a v e a rig h t to sp e a k .” B u tt at t empt ed t o as s i s tpeopl e w i t hi n h is w ar d w i t h i s s ues s uch as o b tain in g w a ter f

a c ili ties a n d h e a lth c a re . H e a lso h e lp e d p e o p le
w ho had pr obl ems w i t h t he pol i ce.
In th e 1 9 8 0 s, P a k ista n w a s u n d e r m ili tar y ru le, a n d B u tt tes tifie d th a t h e w a s a rre ste d tw ice d u rin g th is tim e

— in 1 9 8 7

— a n d c h a rg e d w ith b e in g a tro u b lem a k e r. A c c o rd in g to B ut t , t he pol i ce t ol d hi m on bot h occa s i ons t hatt heydi d notl i ke t he PPP and t hathe sho u ld stop hi s act i vi t i es on behal f of the part y . E ach ti m e B uttw as r el eased aftera cou ple hours.

E l ect i ons w er e hel d i n Paki s t an i n 1 9 8 9 , aft ert he governi ng gener al di ed, and the PPP gai ned pow er i n t he countr y . H ow ever , i t s governm entdi s s ol ved on A ugus t6, 1990. B ut tt es t i fi ed thathe w as agai n arr es t ed on A ugus t31, 1990 and det a i n e d u n t i l Se p t e mbe r 7 , 1 9 9 0

. He s t a t e d t h a t h e was not5 given fo od or w at er for t w o day s and thathe w as beat en at l east tw ice a d a y , so m e tim e s w ith a lea th e r s tr a p . B u tt rela ted h is t r eatm entw hi l e det ai ned as fol l ow s : “Theyhung m e ups i de dow n and bea tm e. T heys t r i pped m e an d b ea t me .

. . . A nd t heybeat m e up so brut al l yt hat m yl eg an d m yback [w ere] so h u rt a n d s till m yle g a n d m yb a c k d o [ ] n o t f u n c tio n p ro p e rl y .” B ut ts t at ed thathe coul d notw al k fors om e t i m e af t erhe w as r el eas ed.

B u t ta n d h i s w i f

e t e s t i f i e d t h a tB u t tw a s t r e a t e d b y a doct or( D r . Sas

j ad) from S ep t ember 10, 1990 t o O ct ober15, 1990 forhi s i nj ur i es and t hat hi s t r eatm ent t ook pl ace athom e. A t h is h e a rin g , B u tt i n tro d u c e d a d o c to r’s n o te r e g a rd in g th is t i m e per i od t hatr eads: “C ert i fi ed thatI have e xami ned and tre a ted M r. K h a lid M a h m o o d B u tt .

. . . H e re p o rte d a t m yc lin ic w i t h m ul t i pl e brui s es on bot h l egs and bac k. H e r emai ned under m ytre a tm e n t . . . 1 0 -9 -9 0 to 1 5 -1 0 -9 0 .” W h e n a sk e d a b o u t th is not e, B ut t t es t i fi ed t hat he di d notr emem bergoi ng t o t he cl i ni c, b u tb e c a u s e h e wa s u n c o n s c i ou s wh e n h e wa s b r o u g h th o me aft erhi s r el eas e fr om det ent i on, he mayhave be en t aken t o t he c lin ic f o r tre a tm e n t at th a t ti m e w ith o u t h a v in g b e e n a w a re o f it.

B u t tt e s t i f

i e d t h a t , a f

t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t , h i s f

r i e n d s , f a m i l y, and t he PPP advi s ed hi m t hathi s l i fe w as i n dangerand thathe and hi s fami l ysh o ul d l eave t he countr y . H e s t at ed thathe and hi s fami l yw enti nt o hi di ng at a fr i end’ s hous e unt i l t heyl eft P a k ista n f

o r th e U n ited S tate s in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 0 . A c c o rd in g to B u tt, th e P P P a rr a n g e d f o r t h e irv is a s a n d p a s s p o rt s .As a r e s u l to f t h e H ome l a n d Se c u r i t yActo f 2 0 0 2 , Pu b

. L. 2 N o . 1 0 7 -2 9 6 , 1 1 6 S tat. 2 1 3 5 (2 0 0 2 ), th e IN S h a s s in c e c e a se d to e x ist a s a n a g e n c yw ith in th e D e p a rtm e n t o f Ju stic e , an d its enfor cementfunct i ons have be en tr ans ferr ed t o B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement w i t hi n t he D epart m ent o f H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y. I ti s uncl earfr om the recor d w hyt he I N S w ai t ed t o i s s ue 3 th e se N o tice s to A p p e a r u n til th e B u tt f a m ilyh a d b e e n in th is countr yforal m os t ei ght y ear s l onger t han t he per i od author i zed 6 B uttal s o t es t i fi ed thathe w as bei ng “fr amed” for

“ a n o th e r [ c ri m in a l] c a s e ” ri g h t b e f o re h e le f

t P a k is ta n . A cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on nami ng B ut t , among ot her s , as a mem ber o f th e P P P w a s in tro d u c e d a s d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e a t h is hear i ng befor e the I J

. B ut ts t at ed thathe had not s een the ac tual document befor e he l eftPaki s t an b u t tha the knew abouti tat th a t ti m e . A c c o rd in g to h is t e stim o n y , so m e o f th e o th e r p e o p le named i n t he documentw er e arr es t ed and e ventual l yr el eas ed.

B u tt an d h is f

a m ilya rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s in N ovember 1990 on non- i m m i gr ant vi s i t orvi s as t hatauthor i zed t hem t o s t ayi n this c o u n tryunt i l M ay1, 1991. H e appl i ed for a sy lu m o n M a y2 1 , 1 9 9 1 , c laim in g th a t h e f e a re d p e rse c u tio n if r e t u r n e d t o P a k i s t a n o n a c c o u n to f h i s wo r k wi th t h e PPP. B utt ’s w i fe an d ch i l dren fil ed d eri vati ve asy l um app l i cat i on s. T he I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) in 1 9 99 2 i s s ued the fa m i l yN ot i ces t o A ppearfors t ay i ng i n t he U ni t ed S tate s b e y o n d th e p e rio d a u th o riz e d b yth e ir v isa s, a n d th e B u tt 3byt he i rvi s a s . D ur i ng t he i nt e r ve ni ng t i me pe r i od , t he PPP re g a in e d p o w e r in P a k ista n f ro m 1 9 9 3 to 1 9 9 6 . B u tt an d h is w i fe t es t i fi ed thatt heynevert hel es s di d notr et u rn to Paki s t an dur i ng t hat t i m e bec aus e theyw er e t ol d byfami l yand fr i ends th a t itw a s n o t sa f

e f o r th e m to g o b a c k . B u tt w a s a lso a f ra id t hatt he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on agai ns thi m w as s t i l l open. Be c a u s e Butt d o e s n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f CA T r el i ef 4
w as in erro r, w e d ee m that claim w a iv e d

. See L ie v . A sh c ro ft , 7 f a m il y c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili ty . A t th is tim e , B u tt ren e w e d h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l.
Bu t ta p p e a r e d at a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e I J o n h i s a s y l u m, w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T cl ai m s i n J ul y2001, and the I J i s s ued a w r i t t en dec i si on deny i ng t hos e cl ai m s i n O ct ober 2 0 0 1 . T h e d isc re p a n c ies b e tw e e n th e tes tim o n yo f B u tt an d h is w i fe a nd t he document aryevi dence t hathad bee n s ubm i t t ed c a u se d th e IJ to “ c o n c lu d e th a t th e re sp o n d e n ts h a v e d e lib e ra tely l i e d t o t h e c o u r t

. ” Sp e c i f i c a l l y , t h e I J i d e n t i f

i e d t h e “ c ru ci al part” o f t he B ut t s ’ t es t i m onyas t hei rs t at ement s r egar di ng t he event s l eadi ng t o M r . Butt ’ s “ i n c ar cer at i on and mi s t r eatm entand hi s exami nat i on and ca r e bya phy s i ci an af t erw ar ds

. ” H e found t hatt he B ut t s ’ t es t i m onyon t hes e i s s ues coul d notbe r econc i l ed
w ith th e le tte r f

ro m M r. B u tt’ s d o c to r.
T h e B IA a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith o u t o p in io n in O ct ober2003. B ut t ’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew of thatdeci s i on i s now befo re us. 43 9 6 F. 3d 530, 532 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hatpet i t i oner w ai ved anyar gum ent r el at i ng t o t he deni al of herC A T cl ai m by n o t prese n ti n g itin h er b ri ef ). 8 I I . Juri s di ct i on & St andard of R evi ew
U n d er 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a), w e h av e jurisdicti o n to h ea r a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew fro m a fin al o rde r o f the B IA

. W h en the B IA aff i r m s an I J w i t houtopi ni on, “w e r evi ew t he I J ’ s opi ni on and s crut i ni ze i t s r eas oni ng. ” Sm riko v . A sh c ro ft , 387 F. 3d 279, 282 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). I n as y l um cas es , w e m us t uphol d t he age ncy ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs if th e ya re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Si ngh- Kaurv. A sh c ro ft , 385 F. 3d 293, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. T hati s , t he deni al of as y lum can be r ever s ed “onl yi f the evi dence pr es ent ed by [the Pet i t i oner ] was s uch thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have t o concl ude thatt he r equi s i t e fe arof per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ” I NS
v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ); s ee als o A bdi l l e v. A sh c ro ft , 242 F.3d 4 7 7 , 483–84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “[T] he [ a g e n c y ]’s f

in d in g m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly supp ort s a contr arycon cl usi o n , but com pels i t

. ”). A dv ers e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s, lik e o th e r f a c tu a l f in d in g s in i m m i gr at i on pr o ce ed i ngs , ar e r evi ew ed undert he s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd

. Mu la n g a v . A sh c ro ft , 349 F. 3d 123, 131 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

I I I . D i s cus s i onI n h is b rie f , B u tt also c o n ten d e d th a t th e B IA e rre d in 5 aff i r m i ng t he I J ’ s dec isi o n i n hi s cas e w i t houtan opi ni on beca us e the I J ’ s deci s i on w as erron eo u s . H ow ever , ator al ar gum ent , B ut t ’ s couns el ab andoned t hi s ar gum enti n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on i n D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d 2 2 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( en banc ) , i n w h ich w e hel d t hatt he i s s uance of an a ffi r m ance w ith o u t o p in io n w a s p ro p e r e v e n th o u g h w e p ro c e e d e d to d e ter m in e th a t th e c a se sh o u ld b e re m a n d e d f o r th e IJ to e x p lain 9 T he A t t or neyG ener al and hi s d e l e g a t e s ma yg r antas y l um t o anyal i en w ho qual i fi es as a r efuge e undert he I m m i gr at i on & N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ). 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 ). A re f u g e e is an a l i e n who i s “ u n a b l e o r u n wi l l i n g ” t o r e tu r n t o h i s o r her countr yof or i gi n “bec aus e of per s ecut i on ora w el l

- founded f ear o f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, 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

. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A )

. “A li ens have the bur den of s u p p o rt in g th e ira s y lu m c la im s th ro u g h c re d ib le te s tim o n y .” G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 9 F

. 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 )

. “ T e s t i m o n y, byi t s el f, i s su ff

ici entt o m eett hi s bur den, i f ‘ cr edi bl e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 8 C

. F. R

. § 20 8

. 1 3 ( a) )

. T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yfor as y l um , an appl i cantm us tdem o n s t r at e pas tper s ecut i on by s ubs t ant i al evi dence or a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on t hat is b o th s u b

je c tiv e ly an d o b

je c t i v e ly re a s o n a b le

. Lukw ago v. A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

B u tt’s p ri n cipa l argu m en t bef o re u s is th at t h e IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as n o t support ed byt he r ecor d. 5f u rth e r th e re a so n in g u n d e rly in g h e r a d v e rse c re d ib il ity d e te rm in a tio n . I

d. at245, 251. T h e G o v e rn m e n t u rg e s u s to ig n o re th is a r g u m e n t, 6 co n tend ing that B u ttfa il ed to ex h au st i t byn o t raisi n g itb ef o re t he B I A and thatourC our tt her efor e does nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o co n side ri t

. A ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , “i n hi s openi ng br i ef t o t hi s C our t [, ] M r . B ut ts ugges t s fort he fi r s tt i m e that there is n o co n tr ad ict ion b etw ee n the testi m o n yan d the d o ctor’s m e m o .” G o v ’ t B r. at 1 8 . A s th e G o v e rn m e n t it se lf a c k n o wl e d g e s , h o wev e r , Butt ’ s a r g u me n tt o t h e BI A w a s t hat t h e IJ ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng s uffe r ed fr om an
“ o v e r r e l i a n c e o n a d e t a i l

. . . p r i n c i p a l l yr e l a t i n g t o wh e r e s o me of t h e m edi cal s er vi ces w er e r ender ed. ” G ov’ tB r . at14 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W e bel i eve that t he G overnm ent ’ s cont ent i on that thi s ar gum entw as not s uffi ci entt o pr es er v e the argum entB ut tr ai s es befor e us i s , at bes t , a hyper - t echni cal r eadi ng of hi s br i ef t o t he B I A , and thus w e re jec t it

. 10 Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends thatt he fi ndi ng w as bas ed s ol el yon t he I J ’ s err oneous int erpr et at i on of the doct or ’ s not e r egar di ng hi s t r eatm entand that , i f the not e i s i nt erpr et ed cor rec tl y , t he fin d ing c annotbe uphel d. B ut tfur t herar gues t hat , i f the I J ’s 6
cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on i s over tur ned, t he r ecor d compel s t he c o n c l u s i o n t h a th e i s e l i g i b l e f o ra s y l u m.
A

. T h e IJ ’s I n ter p re ta tio n o

f th e D o c to r’s N

o te11 W e m u st affor d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng “s ubs t ant i al defe r ence s o l ong as t he fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by s uffi ci entcogentr eas ons . ” R e yno so-Lop ez v . A sh c ro

ft , 369 F. 3d 275, 278 (3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on o m itt e d ); S e n a th i r a

j a h v
. I NS , 157 F. 3d 210, 216 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( “A n i m m i gr at i o n judge w ho r ej ect s a w i t nes s ’ s pos i t i ve tes tim o n yb e c a u se in h is o r h e r ju d g m e n t itlac k s c r e d ib il ity s houl d offe ra spec i fi c, cogent r eas on forhi s orherdi s bel i ef. ”) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s, b rac k ets, a n d c it ati o n o m itted). In t hi s cas e, t he det er m i nat i on t hat B ut t w as notcr edi bl e w as bas ed o n w h at t h e IJ p erc eiv e d a s a c o n tr ad ict ion b etw ee n B u tt ’s t es t i m ony and t he doct or ’ s not e t hat he s ubm it ted as c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e . T h e IJ s tate d :

I f t he or al t es t i m ony i s acc ur at e and [B ut t , ] aft er bei ng m i s t r eat ed s er i o u sly , r ece i ved medi cal at t ent i on athom e on l y , w hy , t he cour tm us tas k i t s el f, does t he d o c t o r ’ s l e t t er expl ai n[] t hat tr ea tm en t w as giv en to [ B u tt ] fo r a p eriod o f 3 5 d a y s at t h e d o ctor’s cli n ic. N o t on lyd o es th e d o ctor’s r ecor d s t at e t he per i od, by s peci fi cal l ypoi nt i ng out t he day s of h is a d m iss io n a n d d isc h a rg e , b u t it al s o p r o v i d e s a fe e l i ng of s er i ous nes s w i t h r es pect t o bot h t he12 co ndi t i on [B ut t ] w as [i n] befor e a d m iss io n a n d th e typ e o f d iag n o sis a n d tre a tm e n t g iv e n . . . . P lain l a n g u a g e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n . . . c o n v e ys a mess age that[B ut t ] w as e xami ned and tr eat ed byt he w r i t er , att he cl i ni c for35 day s . . . . A s s um i ng a r eas onabl e expl anat i on had bee n g iven , an d assu m ing the c o u rt w oul d bel i eve t h e ser i ous nes s of th e se in ju rie s, I c o u ld p ro b a b ly under s t and hi s for get t i ng t h athe
w as t r eat ed att he cl i ni c r athert han athom e . . . . B u t how does one expl ai n t hathi s w i fe al s o for got s uch an i m p o rt ant fac t and di s t i nct i on?

T he I J ’ s deci s i on t hus m akes cl eart hathe r ead the d o c to r’s n o te to m e a n th a t B u tt h a d b e e n tre a ted a t th e c lin ic it s e lf f o r th irty -f

iv e d a y s. H o w e v e r, w e b e liev e th a t th e p lain l anguage of t he not e does not s uppor t t hatconcl us i on. A s s t at ed earl ier , t he n ote s t at es that B utt“report ed at m y[t he d octor ’s ] cl i ni c w i t h m ul t i pl e brui s es on bot h l egs and bac k. H e r emai ned underm yt r eatm ent

. . . 10- 9- 90 t o 15- 10- 90. ”
A co m m ons ens e i nt erpr et at i on of thi s s t at ement i s t hat B ut t( 1) w entt o t he doct or ’ s cl i ni c fort r eatm entof hi s i nj ur i es13 and ( 2) t hen r ece i ved fur t hert r eatm entfr om t he s ame doct orfor a per i od of t hi r t y - fi ve day s . J us tbeca us e B ut t“r emai ned under [ h is d o c to r’s ] tre a tm e n t” a f ter re p o rtin g a t th e c lin ic d o e s n o t, i n ev ery d ayu sa g e , m ea n that h e re m aine d u n d er h is do ctor’s tre a tm e n t a t th e c lin ic

. Peopl e oft en s ayt hatt heyhave r emai ned u n d er a p arti cu lar d o ctor’s ca re fo r a ce rt ain p eriod o f ti m e. If thes e typ es o f statem en ts actua ll yh ad th e m ea n ing the IJ at t r i but ed t o t he doct or ’ s s i m i l ars t at em enther e, a pedi atr i ci an w ho comm ent ed thata new bor n had been brought fort r eatm ent athi s orheroffi ce a nd r emai ned under hi s orhercar e unt i l age ei g h t een w oul d be s t at i ng t hatt he chi l d cont i nuous l yr ece i ved ca re a t th e p ed iat ri cian ’s of fice fo r eigh t een ye ars . T h is i nt erpr et at i on of t he pedi atr i ci an’ s comm enti s nons ens i cal and i s cert ai nl ynothow t he s t at ement w oul d be under s t ood i f m ade d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f

a n o rm a l c o n v e rs a tio n . O urexampl e i s extr em e, b u t i ti l l us t r at es ourcr i t i cal co n ce rn w ith the IJ’s interp retati o n o f th e n o te. A lth o u g h the IJ c h a ra c ter ize d h is rea d in g o f th e n o te a s b a se d o n its “ p lain l ang uag e, ” he di d not consi der t he ev ery dayusage o f t he p hrase “r emai ned underhi s doct or ’ s car e. ” I ns t ead, t he IJ r ead i nt o t he not e an a ddi t i onal s t at ement t hatB ut tr emai ned undert he d o ctor’s c are “a t th e c li n ic. ” T h e IJ s tat ed that, if t h e d o ctor’s n o te co u ld n o t be re co n cil ed w ith th e “ cru cial pa rt ” o f B u tt ’s and his w i fe’s t esti m o n yregar ding his t reatm ent, B utt ’s case w o u ld “ c o llap se [ ] a s a p yra m id o f c a r d s .” N o t o n lyd o e s th is s i m i l e s t r e t c h t o e x c e s s , i tr i s k s a “ tu r n a r o u n d i s f a i rp l a y” re s p o n s e . S e e D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2003)Th e I J c h a r a c t e r i z e d Butt ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t h e ma yhave 7 bee n t a k e n t o t h e c l i n i c whi l e u n c o n s c i o u s a s n o tbei ng
“ re a so n a b le.” A s q u o ted e a rlier , the IJ w e n t o n to sta te th a t,

14 ( en banc ) (s tatin g th a t an IJ’ s “ re a so n in g p ro c e ss a p p e a r[ e d ] to b re a k d o w n a s th e IJ, re p e a ted ly , [d re w ] a n u n re a so n a b le con cl usi on from a fact suscept i ble t o d i fferi ng i nterpret at i on s” and thats uch an “ aggr egat i on of empt yr at i onal es . . . devol ve[d] in to a n u n s u p p o rt e d f

in d in g o f a d v e rs e c re d ib ility” ).

T he I J saw the contr adi ct i on he per cei ved betw een the t extof t he not e and B ut t ’ s t es t i m onyas evi dence t hatB ut thad m a d e “ a d e lib e ra te e f

f o rt . .

. to m isle a d th [ e ] C o u rt.” T h is co n clus ion ca n n o t st an d o n c e w e u se th e straigh tfo rw ard m e a n in g o f th e n o te— th a t B u tt w a s tre a ted f o r b ru ise s o n h is l egs and back at t he cl i ni c and t hen gener al l y r emai ned undert he car e of t he s ame doct orforovera mont h ( notnece s s ar i l yatt he cl i ni c)

. T hatr eadi ng i s cons i s t ent w i t h B ut t ’ s t es t i m onyt hat : ( 1) h e w as b ea ten s o “tha t [h is] leg a n d [h is] b ac k [w ere ]

. . . h u rt an d

. . . [d id] n o t fu n cti o n p rop erly ”; (2) h e w as u n d er the ca re of D r . Saj s ad, t he aut hor of t he not e, fr om Sept ember 10, 1990 t o O ct ober15, 1990; and ( 3) hi s t r eatm entt ook pl ace athom e, bu tt hat “there cou l d b e on e po ssi bil i t yt ha t I w a s alm ost uncons ci ou s w hen theybr oughtbe home. Pr obabl yt heyt ook m e t o hi s cl i ni c and then he tr eat ed m e. ” ( B ut tdi d notr emem ber t he det ai l s “bec aus e [hi s ] s i tuat i on w as extr emel y w or s e att hat tim e .” ) A c c o rd in g ly , co n tr a r y to th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n , the n o te

7[ a ]ss u m i n g a re a s o n a b l e expl anat i on had bee n gi ven, and as s um i ng t he cour tw oul d bel i eve th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f

th e s e in ju ri e s , I c o u ld p ro b a b lyu n d e rsta n d h is for get t i ng t hathe w as t r eat ed att he c lin ic r a th e r th a n a t h o m e . H is p o o r p h y sic a l co n d iti o n . . . co u ld under t hos e ci r cumst ance s acc ount for t he di s cr epanc y . B uthow does one expl ai n t hat hi s w i fe a l s o for got s uc h a n i mpo r t a n t f a c t and di s t i nct i on?
I n a s k i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , t h e I J i g n o r e s t h a t , i n h e rt e s t i m o n y, B ut t ’ s w i fe ga ve an e xpl anat i on as t o w hys he di d notr emem ber th a t h e r h u s b a n d h a d b e e n tr e a te d a t th e c lin ic , s ta tin g th a t, i nt er a lia , s he “di d not know ” w hether B ut t “w ent t here [to t he doct or ’ s offi ce] ornotbut[s he thought ] al l t r eatm entw as gi ven atho m e . . . . ” Thus, B ut t ’ s w i fe di d notunequi vocal l yt es t i fy that h er h u sb an d w as o n lytr ea ted a t ho m e. Itm ayb e that the IJ di d not cr edi t B ut t ’ s w i fe’ s expl anat i on, buthe di d notgi ve any ind icati o n in h is de cisi o n as to w h ethe r th at w as th e c ase . In addi t i on, t he di s t i nct i on betw een t he t es t i m ony of bot h B ut tand hi s w i fe thatt heycoul d notr em ember w hetherhe had be en t aken t o t he cl i ni c, and the doct or ’ s s t at ement t hatB ut tr epor t ed to the cli n ic, b ec o m es m u ch less d ram ati c w h en the d o ctor’s n o te is u n d e rsto o d to re f e r to o n lyo n e c lin ic v isit ra th e r th a n to an ent i r e mont h of ca r e att he cl i ni c. 15 c an be r econc i l ed w i t h B ut t ’ s t es t i m ony . A nd, as t her e i s noT h e IJ’ s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e d o c to r’s n o te d id n o t d iss ip a te 8 t he cl oud he bel i eved hung ove rB ut t ’ s ot herevi dence w oul d be unt enabl e eve n i f w e agr eed w ith t he I J ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t h e r e w a s a c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e n o t e a n d B u t t ’ s t e s t i m o n y. T hatconcl us i on r es t ed on the I J ’ s cr edi t i ng of w hathe bel i eved t he doct orhad w r i t t en— t hat B ut t had r epor t ed t o t he cl i ni c and stay ed th e re fo r th irty -five d ay s— an d n o t cred it ing B u tt ’s t es t i m onyt hathe w as treat ed ( atl eas tpr i nci pal l y ) athom e for t hatper i od. T he I J ’ s deci s i on r epea t edl ys t at ed thatB ut tw as l y i ng and del i ber at el ym i s l eadi ng t he C our t

. I f t he I J vi ew ed the tes tim o n ya s u n re liab le a n d th e n o te a s re liab le, h o w th e n c o u ld he conc l ude thatt he not e it self contr i but ed t o t he “c l oud” h an g ing o v er the ev iden c e ? T h u s, w e b eli ev e tha t th e IJ’s sta tem e n t th a t itd id is illo g ica l w h e n v iew e d in c o n ju n c tio n w ith 16 contr adi ct i on betw een thatt es t i m onyand the pl ai n l anguage of the n o te, there is co rresp o n d ing ly n o s u p p o rtfo r th e IJ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t B u tt l ied to th e Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt.
T h e IJ a lso d e ter m in e d th a t “[ t]h e d o c to r’s lette r o r n o te [w as] c ruc ial to the re li ab il ity[h e c o u ld] attri b u te t o [B u tt ]’s ot herdocument s ” and t hat , appar ent l y beca us e of the purpor t ed contr adi ct i on betw een the not e and t he t es t i m ony , “[t ] he cl oud th a t h a n g s o v e r [ B u tt] ’s e v i d e n c e h a s n o t b e e n d is s ip a te d .” A g a in , w h e n th e c o m m o n se n se re a d in g o f th e d o c to r’ s n o te is us ed, i ti s cons i s t entw i t h B ut t ’ s t es t i m onyand ther efor e ca nnot be vi ew ed as cas t i ng ( orcontri b u ti ng t o) a “c l oud” overt he ot herevi dence s ubm i t t ed byhi m i n s uppor tof h is a s y l um a p p lica tio n . T h u s, th e a lleg e d c o n tra d ictio n b e tw e e n th e n o te

8the r es tof hi s deci s i on and, as s uch, does notfal l i nt o t he c a te g o ry o f

a “ s p e c if ic c o g e n t” re a s o n a s re q u ir e d b y , in tera lia , R eynos o- Lopez t o s uppor tt he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on. 17 and the t es t i m ony , bas ed as i t i s on t he s t r ai ned i nfer ence s of the I J r athert han on com m onl y under s t ood us age, does notpr ovi de a s o u n d b a s is f

o r h is a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . See D i a, 353 F. 3d at251 ( hol di ng t hat adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on w a s n o t s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e w h e n , in tera lia , “the co n clus ion s o f th e IJ [ w ere ] m o re p u zz li n g than p laus ible, m o re c u ri o u s th a n c o m m o n s e n s e ” ).

B

. O th e r R e a so n s for th e A d v e r s e C r e d ib ility D et er m i nat i on
O n c e th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n s re g a rd in g th e re latio n sh ip betw een the doct or ’ s not e and But t ’ s t es ti m onyar e unr avel ed, w e are l eft w i t h only t w o ot her reas on s adv anced by t he I J in su p p o rt o f

th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n : (1 ) h is g e n e ric cr i t i que of t he pr offe r ed t es t i m ony , w hi ch he de s cr i bed as “thi n” a n d “ e x tre m e ly v a g u e ” ; a n d (2 ) his v iew o f th e o th e r d o c u m e n ts s ubm i t t ed byB ut t as “equa l l y fl i m s y i n t hatnei t heri s ver i fi ed or authent i cat ed. ” A s st at ed ear lier, w e affo rd an IJ ’s adv ers e cr edi bi l i t y det er m i nat i on s ubs t ant i al defe r ence i f i ti s s uppor t ed by “s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons . ” R eynos o- Lopez , 369 F. 3d at278 (i nternal quotat i on s m arks and cit at i on om i t t ed). T hese s t at ement s , w hi ch w er e s econda r yt o t he I J ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t he n ote and t est i m on ycon fl i ct ed a s a b a si s for the ad verseW e not e thatt hi s i s p arti cu larl yt rue i n t hi s cas e, w her e the 9 r ecor d cont ai ns t es t i m onyt hati s fai r l yw el l devel oped as w el l as document s t hatappea rt o s upp o rt t hatt es t i m ony( i ncl udi ng evi dence of B ut t ’ s m ember s hi p in the PPP, t he cr i m i nal i nfor m at i on tha tB ut tcl ai m ed pr om pt ed hi m t o fl ee Paki s t an, and the doct or ’ s not e s t at i ng t he pl ace s i n w hi ch B ut tw as i nj ur ed and the l ength of hi s t r eatm ent )

. W e r ecogni ze thatt he f a ct -fi nd er i s general l yi n the bestpo si t i on t o judge c redi b ili ty a n d m a yh a v e in sig h ts th a t ca n n o t b e g lea n e d f r o m th e c o ld re c o rd . If

th is is th e c a se , h o w e v e r, w e d o n o t th in k it unr eas onabl e t o r equi r e the I J t o pr ovi de s peci fi c, cogent expl anat i ons of w hyappar ent l ys ound t es t i m onyw as r ej ect ed. A s w e s t at ed i n D ia , “requi r[i ng ] soun d reasoning [from t he IJ] br eathes l i fe i nt o [t he s ubs t ant i al evi dence ] s t andar d. ” 353 F. 3d at251. W e ca nnots ay that t hi s r equi r ement i s s at i s fi ed w hen there is no ex p lana ti o n g iv e n f o r th e IJ’s d isbe li ef

o f B u tt ’s test im o n yo ther tha n h is erron eo u s interpre tat ion o f th e d o ctor’s n o t e a n d h i s s t a t e me n tt h a t t h e t e s t i mo n yd i d n o t“ i mp r e s s ” h i m. 18 cre d ibil ityd eterm ination , are sim p lytoo g en era l and co n clus o ry t o pr ovi de a ba s i s forus t o uphol d hi s det er m i nat i on. T heydo not g i v e a n y i n s i g h t i n t o why t h e I J t h o u g h t t h e t e s t i mony w as vague or w hy t her e w as r eas on t o ques t i on t he authent i ci tyof t h e d o c u me n t s Bu t ts u b mi t t e d

. Wi t h o u ts u c h a n e x p l a n a t i o n , we a re u n a b le to a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. S e e , e .g ., 9 D ia , 353 F

. 3 d at252 ( s t at i ng t hat“[a ] bs enta r eas on s uch as im p laus ibil ityo r i n co n sist en cyb ase d in the rec o rd . . .[,] the IJ sh o u ld no t h av e sum m aril y d ism issed [th e p e titi o n er]’sT he G overn m en t n ot es ot heri ncons i s t enci es i n t he 10 re c o rd

— su c h a s th e p re c ise d a te B u tt m a yh a v e b e e n tak e n to th e c lin ic— th a t itb e li e v e s s u p p o rt th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n . See G ov’ tB r . at15–16 nn. 5–7. H o w ever , t he IJ d id n o t re lyo n a n y o f th e se o th e r a lleg e d in c o n sis ten c ies in ma k i n g h i s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yd e t e r mi n a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , we emphasi ze he r e, as w e have pr evi ous l y , t hat“[g] ener al l y , m i nor i ncons i s t enci es and m i nor admi s s i ons t hatr evea l not hi ng about 19 te sti m o n yo n [a p arti cu lar] po int”); Mul anga , 3 4 9 F. 3d at 137–38 ( hol di ng t hatan I J ’ s di s bel i ef o f an al i en’ s t es t i m ony w as “uns ound” w hen the onl yfoundat i on t he I J ar t i cul at ed for th a t b e lie f

w a s th a t th e te s tim o n yla c k e d “ c o m m o n s e n s e ” ).
In th is co n text, w e a re co m p ell ed to co n clud e tha t th e IJ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w a s e rro n e o u s. W e a lso n o te t hat , once the doct or ’ s not e i s gi ven i t s pl ai n l anguage m eani ng, i ti s , a s s t a t e d a b o v e , r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h B u t t ’ s t e s t i m o n y, r emovi ng t he onl y i ncons i s t ency t he IJ poi nt ed t o i n hi s deci s i on. T he I J hi m s el f s t at ed that , w i t houtt he cont radi ct i on he p e rc e iv e d , “[ t]h e tes tim o n yp re se n ted w a s th in

. . . b u t it w o u ld h av e su rviv ed a c ertain d eg ree o f c o n sist en cy. . . . ” If cons i s t encyi s cruci al t o cr edi bi l i t y , as w e thi nk i ti s , w e do not se e h o w th e re c o rd in th is ca se c a n su p p o rt a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on. H ow ever , i n keepi ng w i t h Supr eme C our tand ourpr ece dent , w e gi ve the I J an o p p o rtuni t yt o r evi s i tt he credi bil i t yi ssue on rem and (w i t ho ut regar d t o hi s pri or adve rs e cre d ibil ity d eterm ination ). S e e IN S v . V e n tu r a , 537 U

. S. 12, 16 10a n a sy lu m a p p lica n t’s f e a r f o r h is s a f

e tya re n o t an a d e q u a te bas i s foran adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. ” G ao , 299 F. 3d at272 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); see also D ia , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 7 8 (M c K e e , J ., c o n c u rrin g in p a rt, d iss e n tin g in p a rt) (“ It c a n n o t b e o v e rsta ted th a t ‘[ c ]a u tio n is re q u ire d [ in m aki ng cred ibi l i t ydet er m i nat i ons ] beca us e of the numer ous f a c to rs th a t m ig h t m a k e it d if f icu lt fo r a n a li e n to a rticu late hi s / herci r cumst ance s w i t h t he degr ee of cons i s t encyone mi ght expec tfr om s om eone w ho i s nei t herbur dened w i t h t he l anguage di f f i c u l t i e s , n o r h a u n t e d b y t h e t r a u ma t i c me mor i e s , t h at m ay h amper comm uni cat i on’ betw een a governm ent agent and a pet i t i oner . ” ( quot i ng Zu b e da v . A sh c ro ft , 333 F. 3d 463, 476 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )))

. 20 (20 0 2 ) ( per cur i am) ( app el l at e court s s houl d, upon r ever s i ng a deci s i on of t he B I A , r emand t he ca s e t o the agenc yforfur t her p ro c e e d in g s e x c e p t in ra re c irc u m sta n c e s); D ia , 353 F. 3d at260 ( “conc l udi ng . . . t hatbeca us e of t he l ack of s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor t t he adver s e cr edi bi l i t y det er m i nat i on, w e w i l l r emand i n or derfort he age ncyt o fur t herexpl ai n ors uppl ement t he rec o rd” ); Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 5 F

. 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 1 1 (3d C ir

. 2003) (rever s i ng B I A ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on and s t at i ng t hat , i n keepi ng w i t h V entura , “[w ]e [w ou l d] n ot as sess [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] ’ s e n t i t l e me n tt o r e l i e f b a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d a s we have r equi r ed it to be m odi fi ed byt hi s opi ni on beca us e the ag en cysh o u ld h av e the o p p o rtu n ityto d o so ”).21 V . C oncl usi on
A l t hough w e mustaff or d s ubs t ant i al defe r ence t o an adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, w e ar e for ced t o concl ude thateven under t hat s t andar d t he IJ ’ s cr edi bi l i t y det er m i nat i on her e does notpas s m us ter. T h e contr adi ct i on t he I J s aw betw een the d o c t o r ’ s n o t e a n d Bu t t ’ s t e s t i mo n ywa s c r e a t e d b yt h e I J ’ s o wn str ai ned i nterpret at i on of the no t e. In the law , as i n all t hings, c o m m o n se n se m u st b e o u r g u id e . Y e t th e IJ f a iled e v e n to cons i dert he eve r y day us age of t he t er m “undera doct or ’ s car e” i n concl udi ng t hatB ut t l i ed about w her e he r ece i ved tr eatm ent for hi s i njur i es. T his fl aw color ed the w ho l e of the IJ ’s analy si s, w hi ch w as gr ounded i n hi s i ncorr ect i nt erpr et at i on of the not e, a n d t h e o n l y a r g u a b l y i n d e p e n d e n t r e a s o n s t h e I J g a ve for f in d in g B u tt i n c re d ib le w e re to o g e n e ra l f o r u s to a sc e rta in w h e th e r t h e yw e re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . F o r t h ese rea so n s, the B IA er re d in af firm ing the IJ’s deci s i on. A l t hough B ut tas ks us al s o t o rul e i n hi s favoron t he m e rits o f h is a sy lu m c laim , w e d e c lin e h is in v itatio n in o rd e r to al l ow t he age ncyt he oppor tuni t yt o r evi ew t he s ubs t ance of that c laim

. W e th e re f

o re re m a n d th is ca se to th e B I A w ith in stru c tio n s to re m a n d it t o th e IJ f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

h is deci s i on and a rul i ng on B ut t ’ s asy lum and w i t hhol di ng of re m o v a l cla im s w ith o u t re f e re n c e to th e p rio r a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyIn c o n n ec ti o n w ith B u tt ’s asy lum claim , w e n o te t h at B u tt ’s 11 l on gst and i ng m em bershi p in the P P P

— a m i no ri t ypart yfor m ost o f th e tim e h e w a s a f

f ili a ted w ith it, in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith h is arr es t s and bea t i ng t hatr es ul t ed i n s ever e i nj ur i es ( t he gene r al natur e of w hi ch w er e cor r obor at ed byt he doct or ’ s not e)

— s eem on t hei rs ur fac e t o m ake out a textb o ok cas e of pe r s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. 22 fi ndi ng. 11