2007 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 12-18-2007 

# G i ll v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3378

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_2007

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 2007 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 " G i ll v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 47. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/47H o n o rab le L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3378 

### SH AZ AR GI LL , Peti ti on er v. AT TO RN EYGENE RA L O F T HE UNI TED STATES,

Re s ponde nt 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 ( N o. A 95- 833- 936) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber13, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2007)

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge ShazarG i l l pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or deri s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m i ng the deni al bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) of hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O therFor m s of C ruel , I nhum an, orD egr adi ng T r eatm entor Puni s hm ent( “C A T ”) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthi s pet i t i on forr evi ew under S e c tio n 2 4 2 o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), c o d if ie d a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . Forthe r eas ons not ed bel ow , w e denythe pet i t i on. I. W e h ig h lig h t o n lyth o se f a c ts th a t ar e p e rtin e n t to o u r a n a ly sis . G ill , a S e v e n th D ayA dv enti st , i s a nat i ve an d cit i zen o f P akis t an. H e cam e t o the U nit ed S t at es as a noni m m i gr antvi s i t oron February21, 2003, and w as author i zed t o s t ayunt i l M ay20, 2 0 0 3 . He o v e r s t a y e d h i s v i s a a n d wa s c h a r g e d wi th r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) . Gi l l c o n c e d e d h i s r e mo v a b i l i tya n d p r o c e e d e d t o a p p l yf o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an d p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T . G ill a ss e rte d in a n a f f id a v it a ttac h e d to h is a p p lica tio n s, a s w e ll as in o ra l tes tim o n y , tha t h e f e a re d p e rse c u tio n in P a k ista n b e c a u se o f

h is re lig io n ; h o w e v e r, th e re w e re sig n if ica n t d if f e re n c e s in h is acc ount s of pr i orharm s uffe r ed i n Paki s t an. T h e IJ w h o c o n sid e re d G ill ’s a p p lica tio n s m a d e a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on beca us e the t es t i m onyG i l l pr es ent ed atthe i m m i gr at i on hear i ng w as3

s ig n if ic a n tly d if

f e re n t th a n th a t p re s e n te d in h is a f f id a v it s u p p o rt in g h is a p p lic a tio n . B a se d o n th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t G ill h a d f a iled to me e th i s b u r d e n s o f

p r o o f a n d p e r s u a s i o n wi th r e g a r d t o h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and w i thhol di ng of r emoval underC A T . H e addi t i onal l yfound thatG i l l w as notel i gi bl e forvol unt arydepartur e. G ill a p p e a le d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . T h e B IA a f f ir m e d a n d a d o p te d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . I n doi ng s o, the B I A agr eed thatan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as w arr ant ed b e c a u se G ill ’s te stim o n ya t th e h e a rin g w a s m a ter iallyd if f e re n t f ro m th a t p re se n ted in h is aff i davi t . T he B I A fur therr ej ect ed G i l l ’ s cont ent i on thatthe I J i ncorr ect l yfound thathe w as i nel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e hi s appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , hol di ng thatthe I J had n o t m a d e su c h a f

in d in g . G ill f

iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith o u r C o u rt. II. W her e the B I A “adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es for th e IJ ’s d e c is io n , w e h a v e a u th o ri ty to re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA .” C h e n v . A sh c ro

ft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W her e, as her e, the I J concl udes t hat the pet i t i oneri s notcr edi bl e, w e r evi ew thi s det erm i nat i on “fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” I d. U nderthi s s t andar d, “w e mustuphol d an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on unl es s ‘ any rea so n ab le ad

jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ’” Id . ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . M or eover , adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons m us tbe

“ a p p ro p ria telyb a se d o n in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts, c o n tra d icto rye v id e n c [ e ], an d in h e re n tly4

i m pr obabl e t es t i m ony. . . i n vi ew of the bac kgr ound evi dence on countrycondi t i ons . ” I d. at223 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H er e, G i l l ’ s aff i davi tand or al t es t i m onyr egar di ng al l eged r el i gi ous per s ecut i on i n Paki s t an w er e pl agued bys i gni fi cant d if f e re n c e s. A t th e h e a rin g , h e w a s u n a b le to e x p lain th e se in c o n sis ten c ies . A s a re su lt, there w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce to f ind that G il l’ s testi m o n yw as n o t cred ible, an d there fo re th a t h e h a d n o t sa tisf

ied h is b u rd e n s o f

p ro o f a n d p e rsu a sio n w ith re g a rd to h is app l i cat i on s. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yGi l l ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.