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 6-14-2006 

# J e an-P ie rre v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4481

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 author i 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 " J e an-P ie rr e v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 894. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/894NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 4481

________________ AM OS J EAN - PI ERRE, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 28 848 991 on Sept ember6, 2005 Im m i grat i on Judg e: G race A . S ease

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 9, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S A N D C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 14, 2006 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A m o s Jea n -P ierre, p roc ee d ing p ro se , p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f a n o rde r of the B o ard2

of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) , di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or der of r emoval . W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. J ean- Pi err e i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of H ai t i . H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1984 and over s t ay ed. H e w as i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppeari n 2003, char gi ng hi m w i t h bei ng rem o v ab le fo r ha v ing o v erstay ed h is visa, fo r ha v ing b ee n co n v ict ed o f tw o o r m o re cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, and forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. I n February2005, he appl i ed foras y l um , 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 ) . J ean- Pi err e’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef w er e bas ed on hi s s t atus as an H I V - pos i t i ve man w ho w oul d be per cei ved t o be a h o mo s e x u a l i n Ha i t i , a n d h i s f e a ro f h i s e x - wi f

e ’ s f a mi l y , wh o h a d th r e a t e n e d t o k i l l h i m. A n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (IJ ) f o u n d h im re m o v a b le a s c h a rg e d . T h e IJ f o u n d th a t h is as y l um cl ai m w as unt i m el yand thathe di d notm eetanyexce pt i on fort i m el yfi l i ng, but cons i der ed hi s ot herappl i cat i ons forr el i ef. I n s uppor tof hi s appl i cat i ons , J ean- Pi err e cl ai m ed thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed beca us e of hi s H I V - pos i t i ve s t atus , and bec aus e he w oul d be per cei ved t o be a hom os exual . H e s t at ed thathe w oul d be ki l l ed i f other s l earned of hi s s t atus , and thathe d i d n o tb e l i e v e t h e r e wa s a n yme d i c a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n Ha i t i f o rth o s e wh o a r e HI Vpos i t i ve. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thathe w i l l be i m pr i s oned as a cr i m i nal depor t ee a nd t or tur ed i f r etur ned t o H ai t i . H e has hear d t hatone nee ds $3000 H ai t i an dol l ar s t o getoutof p r i s o n , a n d h i s f

a m i l y h a s n o m o n e y. A s t o the H IV cl ai m , t he IJ dou bted that J ean-Pierre coul d clai m that he w as aT h e IJ a ls o d e n ie d re lie f o n th e b a s is o f

J e a n -P ie rr e ’s f

e a r o f h is e x -w if

e ’s f a m ily. 1 J e a n - P i e rr e d o e s n o tp u r s u e t h a tc l a i m i n h i s b r i e f , s o w e n e e d n o td i s c u s s i th e r e . We n o te th at w h il e the IJ m ad e a n ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing w ith resp ec t t o Jea n -P ierre’s tes tim o n yre g a rd in g h is f e a r o f h is e x -w if

e ’s f a m ily , the IJ d id n o t q u e stio n h is c re d ib ili ty w i th respectt o h i s ot her cl ai m s. J ean- Pi err e ar gued thathe w as unaw ar e of hi s H I V - pos i t i ve s t atus unt i l aft erone y ear 2 h a d p a ss e d ; h o w e v e r, th e IJ n o ted th a t h e lea rn e d o f h is H IV sta tu s b e f

o re m o v in g to P h i l a d e l p h i a i n 1 9 9 5 ; t h u s , h e k n e w o f h i s s t a tu s t e n y e a r s b e f o r e h e f i l e d f o ra s y l u m. 3 m em b er o f a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p b ase d o n the c lai m , an d n o ted th at th ere w ere tre a tm e n t p ro g ra m s a v a ilab le in H a iti f o r p e o p le w h o a re H IV -p o sitiv e . T h e IJ d e n ied h is C A T claim , b ase d o n A u g u ste v . R idg e, 39 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 1 T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) aff i r m ed. T he B I A agr eed thatJ eanP ier re ’s a sy lu m c laim w a s tim e -b a rre d , an d th a t th e re w e re n o c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s to ex cu se th e u n ti m eli n ess. T h e B IA n o ted th at ev en if th e c lai m w ere ti m ely , Jea n -P ierre 2 had nots how n he w as a mem berof a pr ot ect ed s oci al gr oup, as the r ecor d cont ai ned i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s how t hatJ ean- Pi err e w oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on, r athert han di s cr i m i nat i on, on acc ountof hi s m edi cal s t atus . T he B I A al s o aff i r m ed the fi ndi ng t hat J ean- Pi err e fa i l ed t o s us t ai n hi s bur den forw i t hhol di ng of deport at i on, ci t i ng A ugus t e, and thathe fa i l ed t o s how t hathe w oul d fac e “t or tur e, ” as defi ned byr egul at i on. B e c a u se Je a n -P ier re is c o n sid e re d a “ c rim in a l alie n ,” o u r ju risd ictio n is lim ited to rev iew o f c o n sti tuti o n al claim s an d q u esti o n s o f law , see 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ) & (D ); s ee a l s o K amar a v. U . S. A t t or neyG ener al , 420 F. 3d 202, 209- 211 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “W e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o opi ne as t o w hether , as a fa ctual m at t er , Pet i t i oneri s l i kel yt o be per s ecut ed upon hi s r etur n t o [H ai t i ] . ” I l chuk v. A t t orneyG ener al , 434 F. 3d 618, 624 ( 3dW e furt herl ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a det erm i nat i on r el at i ng t o t he unt i m el i nes s of 3 an as y l um appl i cat i on. Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 634 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (c itin g 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 )) . 4 C i r . 2006) . W e thus r evi ew her e onl yw hetherthe B I A comm i t t ed anycons t i tut i onal or l egal err ori n deny i ng J ean- Pi err e’ s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orpr ot ect i on u n d e rt h e CA T. 3 T o be ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tpr ove thathi s “l i fe or f r e e d o m w o u l d b e t h r e a t e n e d i n t h a tc o u n t r y b e c a u s e o f [ h i s ] r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, me mbe r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . ” 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . “ To m eetthi s t es t , t he al i en mustdemonstr at e thatther e i s a gr eat er - t han- fi fty - per centchanc e o f p erse cu ti o n u p o n h is or h er return . ” S en athiraja v . IN S , 1 5 7 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 (3d C ir . 1998) . D i s cr i m i nat i on al one does notgener al l yr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on, s ee A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T o pr evai l on a cl ai m underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e an a ppl i cantm us t“es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not th a th e o rs h e wo u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e mo v e d t o th e p r o p o s e d c o u n t r yo f r e mo v a l . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c )( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 4 ). I n di s cus s i ng hi s as y l um cl ai m , the B I A s t at ed: W e not e thatw hi l e the r es pondentcl ai m s t o be the mem berof a pr ot ect ed s oci al gr oup, w e do notbel i eve thi s t o be the ca s e. T he r ecor d cont ai ns i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatthe r es pondent ’ s H I V pos i t i ve s t atus s ubj ect s hi m t o per s ecut i on i n H ai t i on acc ountof bei ng a mem berof a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p . T h e e v iden ce o f so cietal discrim ination fa ll s sh o rt of thatneede d t o s how per s ecut i on. B I A deci s i on at3. A l t hough t hi s s t at ementw as m ade i n t he cont extof r evi ew i ng J eanP i err e’s el i gibi l i t yfor asy l um , Jean-Pi err e w as al so requi red t o sho w that he w as aT he r ecor d cont ai ns ar t i cl es s how i ng thatA I D S i s a maj orpr obl em i n H ai t i , that 4 ho m osexu al i t yi s a t abo o subj ect , and that s ociet al dis cri m i nati on occu rs against ho m osexu al s, bu tdo es not i nclude ev i den ce that per sons w ho are H IV -posi t i ve an d those p e rc e iv e d to b e h o m o se x u a l ar e p e rse c u ted , an d n o t sim p lyd isc rim in a ted a g a in st. 5 m e m b e r o f

a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p in o rd e r to b e e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l T he B I A l at ers t at ed that“[t ] he r ecor d s uppor t s thatI m m i gr at i on J udge’ s concl us i on t hat the r es pondentfai l ed t o s us t ai n t he bur den of pr oof appl i cabl e t o w i t hhol di ng of depor t at i on. ” I d. at4. W e d o n o t f

in d th a t th e B IA m a d e a n yleg a l er ro r in d e ter m in in g th a t Je a n -P ier re is notel i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . J ean- Pi err e’ s i m put ed s t atus as a homosexua l coul d be the bas i s fora w i t hhol di ng cl ai m bas ed on mem ber s hi p i n a “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup. ” A m anfi v. A s hcr oft , 328 F. 3d 719, 730 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . Si m i l ar l y , the G overnm enthas r ecogni zed thatper s ons w i t h H I V pos i t i ve s t atus coul d cons t i tut e a “part i cul ars oci al gr oup. ” K ar ouni v. G onzal es , 399 F. 3d 1163, 1171 ( 9 C i r . 2005) th ( ci t i ng M emora ndum fr om D avi d A . M art i n, I N S O ffi ce of G ener al C ouns el ( Feb. 16, 1996) , r eport ed i n 73 I nt erpr et erR el eas es 909, 909 ( J ul y8, 1996) ) . W e do notr ead the B I A deci s i on i n t hi s cas e as pr ecl udi ng the pos s i bi l i t yof r el i ef on the bas i s of i m put ed hom os exual i t yorH I V - pos i t i ve s t atus i n al l cas es ; r ather , w e r ead the dec i s i on as fi ndi ng th a t Je a n -P ier re d id n o t es tab lish th a t h e w o u ld b e p e rse c u ted o n e ith e r b a sis if re tu rn e d to H ai t i . A l though J ean- Pi err e pr es ent ed evi dence of hi s s ubj ect i ve fe arof per s ecut i on, he pr es ent ed veryl i t t l e thatw oul d s uppor tan obj ect i ve fi ndi ng thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed i f r etur ned t o H ai t i . T hus , the B I A di d noterri n r eac hi ng i t s l egal concl us i on thathe had 4 n o te s t a b l i s h e d a “ p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p ” c l a i m.6

I n deny i ng J ean- Pi err e’ s C A T cl ai m , the B I A pr oper l yr el i ed on A ugus t e v. R i dge, 395 F. 3d 123 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U nderA ugus t e, “foran ac tt o cons t i tut e t or tur e, the ac t or m us tnotonl yi nt end t o comm i tt he ac tbutal s o i nt end t o achi eve the cons equenc es of the ac t. ” Id . at 15 3 . “T h e m ere fa ct th at th e H ait ian a u tho ri ti es h av e k n o w ledg e tha t sev ere p a in a n d su f

f e rin g m a yre su lt b yp lac in g d e tain e e s in th e se c o n d iti o n s d o e s n o t su p p o rt a fi ndi ng thatt he H ai t i an author i t i es i nt end t o i nfl i cts ever e pai n and s uffe r i ng. ” I d. at153- 54. I n ot herw or ds , bypl aci ng a det ai nee i n pr i s on, the H ai t i an author i t i es have no s peci fi c i nt entt o i nfl i ctt or tur e on thati ndi vi dual w i t hi n t he meani ng of the C A T . I d. at 154. T he courtcaut i oned, how ever , thati tw as notadopt i ng “a pe rs e rul e thatbrut al and depl or abl e pr i s on condi t i ons can ne vercons t i tut e t or tur e. ” I d. R ather , i m pr i s oni ng an i ndi vi dual i n depl or abl e condi t i ons can r i s e t o t he l evel of t or tur e i f ther e i s evi dence of inten t t o inf

li ct sev ere p ain a n d su ff ering o n that ind ividu al. Id. O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd s how s t hatJ ean- Pi err e di d nots ubm i tanyevi dence thatw oul d s how the H ai t i an governm ent ’ s i nt entt o i nfl i cts ever e pai n and s uffe r i ng. W e f in d n o leg a l er ro r o r c o n stitu tio n a l in f irm ityin th e B IA ’s d e c isio n . W e w ill th e r e f o r e d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.