T he H o no rable E d m und A
. Sa rgus , Jr. , U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he So ut hern D i st ri ct of O hi o , s i t t i ng * b y de si gnat i o n. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0507n.06 No. 08-3924 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
B ASS EM SL I EM ANB ASS AM , SAM I RA AJAM I , F AT EM A B ASS AM , and HA SSA N B ASS AM , Pe tit ion e rs , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS
OPI NI ON

Before: GILMA N and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and S ARG US, DistrictJudge. * RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Ba ssem Slieman Ba ssam is a native a nd citizen of L ebanon. He spent much of his c hildhood in Kuwait, and c ontinued to live and work the re a s an adult. Along with his wife and two children, Bassam arr ived i n the United States as a nonimmigra

nt vis ito r i n D e c e mbe r 2 00 0. I n Apr il 2 00 3, the g ov e rnme nt se rv e d a ll fo ur me mbe rs of the fa mil y wi th Notices to Appe ar in im m igr ation court, a lleg ing that they had over stay ed their visas. B assam responde d by

fi l i n g an application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (C AT ). Hi s w if

e and c hil dr e n w e re inc lud e d a s d e ri vativ e a pp lic ants
. An Immigration J udg e (I J ) re viewed B assam’s a pplication in March 2007. A fter c oncluding t h a tB a s s amh a d

f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s he l i g i b i l i ty

f o r an y o f th e th r e e f

o r m s o f r e l i e f h e s o u g h t , th e IJNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 2 - order ed B assam and his family members removed to L ebanon. B assam appe aled the I J ’s dec ision to the B oa

rd of I mmi g ratio n Ap pe a ls (B I A) , wh ic h a ff ir me d the de c isi on . He no w pet it io ns thi s court for revie w. For

the re asons set for

th below, we DENY Ba ssam’s petition.
I. BACKG ROUND Ba ssam was the only

witness at h i s h earing be fore the I J . Be cause the I J deter mined that Ba ssam testified cr edibly , we will ac cept his testimony as true. The testimony established that Ba ssam was born in southe rn L ebanon in 1965, but that he and his f amily moved to Kuwait in 1975 be c a us e of the c ivi l w ar t

he n o c c ur ri ngin L e ba

no n. B a ssa

m’ s f a the r o bta ine d w or

k at the Kuwa it N a t i o n a l P e t r o l e umC o mp an y. I n 1 98 0, a war br ok e out be tw e e n Ira q a nd I ra n. Kuwa it s up po rt e d Ira q in the wa r. Shi a Muslims (including Ba ssam and his family and other L ebane se citizens) wer e viewe d with suspicion in K uw a it b e c a

us e the Kuwa iti govern ment pe rc e ive d th e Shi a

a s su pp or te rs of Ira n. As a re su lt, Ba ssam’s father wa s detained f or two we eks in 1985. Kuwa iti security forc es ar rested him along with many

other L ebane se men two day s afte r an assassination attempt on the Amir of Kuw ait. After Ba ssam’s father wa s relea sed, all of B assam’s f amily members we re de ported to L ebanon. Ba ssam himself rema ined in Kuwait whe n his family was de ported be cause he had his own
w o r k v i s a an d w a s e mp l o ye d

a s a r e f i n e r y o p e r a t o r

b y th e K uw a i tN a t i o n a l P e tr o l e u mC o mp an y. B ut B a ssa

m and oth e r L e ba

ne se nationa ls c on tin

ue d to be pe rc e ive d w ithsu sp ic ion in K uw a it. Specifica lly , Ba ssam was a rre sted by Kuwaiti sec urity

forc es at his pl ace of employ ment in J anuar

y 1989. His arr est and subseque nt interrog ation followed a n explos ion that had occ urre d at the re fineryNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 3 - wh e re he wo rk e d. Th e Kuwa iti se curi ty for c e s q ue sti on e d h im a

bo ut t he e xplos ion

and a bo ut h is family history , relig ion, employ ment, and whether he belong ed to any milit ia g roups. B assam wa s detained f or four day s and then rele ased without char g es. Although he was slapped in t he fa ce a few tim e s d ur ingthe int e rr og a tio n, he did no t su ff e r a ny phy sic a l ha

rm . Two day s after

his relea se, Ba s sam rec eived a letter notifying him that his contra ct at the pe tr ole um c omp any

ha d n ot b e e n r e ne we d. B a ssa m w a s u nab le to fi nd

ano the r j ob in K

uw a it. Be cause his v i s a was conting ent on employ ment, he re turned to L ebanon a nd rema ined there for eig ht or nine months. Dur ing his time in L ebanon, he was de tained on var ious occa sions for per iods of three to four hours while guards pe rfor med bac kg round che cks on him. He testified that he was
never beate n or phy sically

harme d, althoug h he ag ain re ceive d minor slaps to the fac e. Ba ssam eventua lly

went bac k to Kuwai t on a tempora ry visa and found w ork at a cate ring company . After

g etting ma

rried in L ebanon i n 1 9 9 2 , he re turned to Kuwa it with his wife. The f am i l y r e m a i n e d i n K

u w a i t u n t i l 2 0 0 0 , w i th B a s s am c o n t i nu i n g t o w o r k f o r th e c a t e r i n g c o mp an y. Ba ssam’s daug hter F atema a nd son Hassan wer e born in K uwait in 1995 and 1996, re spectively , but both children a

re c itiz ens of L ebanon. Ba ssam visited L ebanon in July 2000. Upon his a rrival in B eirut, he was detained by airport
se c ur ity off

ici als f or thr e e to f

our h ours . A ft e r h is r e le a se fr om t he a ir po rt , h e wa s st op pe d at a chec kpoint and held for two day s by Sy rian security forc es t hat wer e then oc cupying L ebanon. H e
su ff e re d n o p hy sic a l harm duri nge ith e r d e te nti on pe ri od . B a ssa

m r e ma ine d in

B e ir ut f or a bo ut a
month a nd a ha lf be fo re re tur

nin g to K uw a it.No. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 4 - Not long the rea fter, B assam’s wor k visa in Kuwait wa s canc elled. He was fired from his job
and tol d to le ave the c ountr

y . H e the n o bta ine d v isi tor vis a s f or him se lf and his fa mil y to t ra ve l to the Un ite d St a te s. Th e fa

mil y le ft Kuwa it o n N ov e mbe r 3 0, 20 00 and pa sse d thro ug h B e ir

ut b ri e fl y in transit on that date. The y arr ived in N ew York on Dec ember 1, 2000. The fa mily has bee n in the United States since that time, and B assam and his w ife now have two additional children who are U. S. c iti zen s. Although B assam fe are d re t u rn i n g to L ebanon, he did not tim ely apply for a sylum. He testified that he did not file a n application beca

use he was una

war e that ther e wa s a time limit and beca use he f ear ed that he w ould be depor ted if he br oug ht himse l f t o t h e go vernme nt’s attention. Ba ssam’s fe ar of returningto L ebanon inc rea sed af ter the World Tra de Center attacks on Septe mber 11 , 20 01 , but he sti ll d id n ot f ile an a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum . H e fi na lly

fi le d h is a pp lic a tio n in

Au g us t 20 04 , a ft e r h e and

his fa mil y ha d b e e n s e rv e d w ithNo tic e s to Ap pe ar t hat c ha rg e d th e m w ith
un lawf ul p re se nc e in t

he Un ite d St a te s. Since the time of his application, a dditional unr est in L ebanon ha s increa sed B assam’s f ear of re turning to his country . Specifica lly , the area in souther n L ebanon where he wa s born was destroy ed duringthe 2006 conf lict betwee n I srae l and L ebanon. B assam testified that his entire fa mil y no w l ive s in

B e ir ut due to t

he de str uc tio n o f t

he ir ho me in t

he so uth . N o h arm

ha s c ome to any of his family

members in B eirut, althoug h they strug g le to find work a

nd they live in fea

r of b o mb i n g s an d

o t h e r v i o l e n c e r e l a t e d

t o th e o n g o i n g c o n f

l i c ti nth e i r

c o un tr y. After Ba ssam prese nted his testimony , the I J issued an ora l decision denying his a pplication for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the CAT. The I J held th at n o n e of theNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 5 - treatment Ba ssam descr ibed rose to the le vel of pas t p erse cution and that, eve n if Ba ssam had demonstrated pa st persec ution, he had not pre sented a ny evidenc e sug g esting that the treatment was
m o t i v at ed b y an y o f th e st at u t o ri l y p ro t ec t ed gro un d s fo r as yl u m an d wi th h o l d i n g o f re m o v a l
. In addition, the I J conclude d that Ba ssam’s fe ar of returningto L eb an o n wa s b ased on the poor
c on dit ion s th e re and

g e ne ra l c ivi l stri fe, no t on any lik e lih oo d th a t he wo uld be su bje c te d to perse cution. Reg arding Ba ssam’s application for protec tion under the CAT, the I J conclude d that Ba ssam h ad never

been tor tured a nd had not pre sented a

ny evidenc e to show a possibility that he would be torture d in the future. The B I A issued a br ief orde r expressing its ag ree ment with the I J ’s
ana ly sis and

c on c lus ion s. Ba ssam now petitions this court for re view of the BIA’s dec ision. He argues that the de te nti on s h e e xpe ri e nc e d in Kuwa it a

nd L e ba no n amou

nte d to pe rs e c uti on

on the ba si s o f h is nationality , membership in a social g roup, and relig ion. Ba ssam also argues that his fea r of f uture pe rs e c uti on

or tor tur e is r e a so na

ble . F ina lly , h e argue s th a t th e I J’s f a ilure to i nc lud e a c op y

of his passport in the re cord violate d the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fifth Ame ndment beca use the B I A was not able to per form a me aning ful revie w of the e vidence
. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review “B eca use the B I A adopted the I J ’s dec ision with additi onal comment ar y , we revie w the decision of the I J , as suppl emented by the BI A, as the final administrative orde r.” Ceraj v. Muk asey , 511 F.3d 583, 588 ( 6th C i r. 2 007). Que stions of law involving immigr ation proce eding s areNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 6 - revie wed de novo. Al i v . A sh c ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 409 (6th Cir. 2004)
. We w ill not disturb the I J ’s fac tual finding s, or a de termin at i o n t hat the petitioner f ailed to establish elig ibilit y for a sylum or withholding of r emoval, if substantial evide nce suppor ts such ruling s. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (holding that a factfinder ’s ruli ng s will be upheld if “supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole”) . Under this standard, a fa c tua l de te rm inatio n o f t he I J will no t be re ve rs e d unles s we fin d “ that th e e vid e nc e no t on ly
su pp or ts a c on tr ary c on c lus ion , b ut c om

pe ls it.” Ma rk

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004) (e mphasis in origina l). B. As ylu m 1. One

-y e ar time l imit f or as y lum app lic ations Ba ssam failed to a

pply for a sylum within one y ear of his arr ival in the Un i ted States, as
re qu ir e d b y

8 U.S. C. § 1158 (a )( 2) (B ). No ne the le ss, the I J g ave B a ssa m th e “ be ne fi t of

the do ub t” reg ardingchang ed countr y conditions in L ebanon th at m i gh t have inc rea sed B assam’s f ear of returning , see § 1 15 8( a )( 2) (D ) ( pe rm itt ing the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l to e xcu se the fa ilure to c omp ly wi th the one- y ear

time limi t in light of “chang ed circumstance s”), and proce eded to a ssess the merits of his application. We will do the same. 2. Le ga l f ra mewo rk

fo r a sy lum Under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA ), 8 U. S .C. § 1158(a), the U.S. Attorney Gene ral ha s t h e dis cre tion to gra nt asylum to a “re fug ee.” Pe rk ov ic v . I NS, 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6 th C ir . 1 99 4)
. Se c tio n 1 10 1( a )( 42 )( A) of the I NAde fi ne s a

“ re fu g e e ” a s a

n a lie n w ho is una

ble or unwilling to re turn to his or her home c ountry “bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r ofNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 7 - perse cution on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membershi p i n a p articular social g roup, or political opinion.” An applicant may there fore establish elig ibilit y for a sylum by

showing that he or she ( 1) has s u ff

er ed past persec ution, or (2) ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). The burden is on the applicant to establish that he or she qualifies as a r efug ee. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) -(b) . I f cr edible, the a pplicant’s testimony

“may be s u ff i ci en t t o sustain the burden of proof without cor

roboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
. A w e ll- fo un d e d

f e a r o f futur e pe rs e c uti on

“ mus t be bo th s ub

je c tiv e ly g e nu ine and

ob je c tiv e ly
rea sonable.” Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 1 46 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 89 (6 th C ir .1 99 8) . T hat is , th e app li c ant m us t “ac tually fea

r that he will be perse cuted upon return to his country , and he must pre sent evidenc e establishin g an ‘objective situation’ under which his fea r ca n be dee med re asonable .” Pe rk ov ic , 3 3 F. 3 d at 6 2 0 -2 1 (q u o t i n g INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421, 440 (1987)). 3. Merits of Bassam ’s application B a ssa m se e ks a sylum

on ly fr om L e ba

no n— his c ountr

y of c iti zenshi p and

the c ountr

y to which the I J desig nated that Ba ssam, his wife, and his c hildren be r emoved. No sug g estion appea rs in t he re c or d th a t th e g ov e rnme nt h a s c on te mpl a te d r e movi ng Bass am and his fa mil y to K uw a it. I ndeed, B assam testified that he no longe r has any leg al basis to enter Kuwait, and he neve r stated that he fe ars pe rsec ution i n t h at co u n try . The g overnme nt corre ctly points out i n its brief that Ba ssam’s re fu gee status must be conside red solely with respec t to L ebanon—his c ountry of nationality
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A). No ne the le ss, B a ssa

m pre se nte d inf

or matio n ab out inc ide nts tha t ha pp e ne d to him

in K uw a it
as we ll as in L ebanon, a

nd the I J discussed hi s elig ibilit y for a sylum from both countries. See O udaNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 8 - v . I NS , 324 F.3d 445, 450- 51 (6th Cir. 2003) (re viewingthe application of a st ateless person for asylum from Kuwait—the pe rson’s last country of re s i dence —even thoug h the applica nt was not elig ible to enter K

uwait)
. To the extent that this was an err or by the I J , we c onclude that it was harmless. The t re at ment that Ba ssam experience d in Kuwait—a sing le incident of de tention and int e rr og a tio n—

wa s n e arl y

ide nti c a l to the tr e a tme nt h e e xpe ri e nc e d in L e ba no n. An a ly sis of

his
a sylum e lig ibi lity

wo uld therefo re no t mate ri a lly

dif fe r b e tw e e n th e tw o c ountr ie s. B ut b e c a us e B a s s am a p p l i e d f o r a s yl u mo n l y f

r o mL e b an o n , a

n d t h e IJ d e s i g n a t e d

h i s r e m o v a l t o t h a tc o u n tr y, we will re view the I J ’s dec ision solely with respec t to L ebanon. B a ssa m de sc ri be d s e ve ra l in c ide nts in L e ba no n w he re he wa s d e ta ine d at c he c kp oints o r i n the airpor t and questioned by

au t h o ri t i es . The long est of these detentions occ urre d in J uly 2000, when he was de tained for two day s while background chec ks wer e conducte d. No other incide nt of detention las te d lo n g e r th an a f e w h o ur s . B a s s am d o e s n o t d e s c r ib e an y p h y s ic a l h ar m th a t w as inf lic te d o n h im i n L e ba

no n, wi th t

he e xce pti on

of a fe w m ino r s la

ps that le ft

re d mar ks on his sk in fo r b ri e f p e ri od s. This treatment doe s not rise to the level of perse cution. See, e .g. , Sedraky an v. Gonzales , 237 F. App’ x 76, 83 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that g ener ally , “[d] etention
. . . in c onnection with a police i n v es t i gat i o nd o [ es ] n o tco n s t i tu t e p er s ec u t i o n . ” ( ci t i n g Al i v . A sh c ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004)))
. The fa cts as B assam desc ribes them ar e similar to those in Mohamme d v. Keisler , 507 F.3d 369, 371-72 (6th Cir. 2007), in which this c ourt conclude d that a thre e-da y period of police detention without abuse, tog ether

with a sing le incident whe re the applicant was slapped a nd kicked but notNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 9 - injured, did not rise to the lev el o f p er s ec u t ion. We therefor e agree with the I J ’s conc lusion that Ba ssam has not shown that he ha s experience d past perse cution in L ebanon. Ba ssam has also fa iled to show that he has a well-founde d fea

r o f fu t ure pe rsec ution. Al tho ug h h e is und e rs tand a bly fe arful of r e tur

nin g to h is c ountr

y be c a us e of va ri ou s unf or tun a te circ umstances ther e, none of the potential difficulties he fac es amount to perse cution as def ined by the I NA . B a ssa

m te sti fi e d th a t he fe ars a dd iti on a l le ng thy de te nti on s a t c he c kp oints, sim ila r to t ho se that have oc curr ed in the past. B ut, as explained above, suc h detention does not rise to the le vel of perse cution. And Bas s am co ncede d at his hear ing that, although he believes that officials mig ht de ta in h im m or e fr e qu e ntl y tha n oth e rs be c a

us e he ha s li ve d in

Ku wa it, ins pe c tio ns a t c he c kp oints
are a routine pa

rt of life f or eve ry one in L ebanon. Ba ssam also stated that wor k is difficult to find in L ebanon, that his children ’s education
m i gh tb e f re qu en t l y i n t errup t edt h er e, an d

th at ci v i l i an s ar e n o t s af

e i nL eb an o nb ec au s e o f b o mb i n gs and ong oing c onflict. We do not doubt that these diff iculties exi st and that Ba ssam fea rs them, but they do not qua lify him f

or a g rant of a sylum. See, e .g. , Pascual v. M ukasey , 514 F .3 d 483 , 4 88 (6 th Cir. 2007) (noting that scar ce educa tional a nd economic opportunities, “re g rettable though the y are , do no t e sta

bli sha c og niza ble c a se of

pe rs e c uti on ” ); Akhtar v. Gonzale s , 406 F.3d 399, 405 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (noting that g ener al civil and socia l strife does not conf er e ligibility

for a sylum). I n sum, the
rec ord does not compel the conclusion t hat Bassam has a well-founde d fea

r of f uture pe rsec ution. C. Withhol din g of rem oval A petition for withholding of remova l is a reque st that the Att o rn ey Gene ral ha lt removal proce eding s if the alien’ s “life or fre edom would be thre atene d in that country beca use of the alien’ sNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 10 - ra c e , r e lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r so c ia l g ro up , or po lit ic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A) . An alien may satisfy his or her bur den of pro o f fo r wi thholding of r emoval by demonstratingpast perse cution in the country of re moval o n account of one or more of the
a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns . 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 1) (i ). Th is s ho wi ngtr ig g e rs a re butta ble presumption that the applica nt’s life or f

ree dom would be threatened in the future if remove d to that country
. Id
. An applica

nt may alternatively

seek withholding of remova l by establishing that “it is more likely than not” that he or

she would suffe r harm in the future upon r emoval to the applica nt’s native
c ountr y —e ve n if the a pp lic ant h a s n ot s uf

fe re d p a st p e rs e c uti on . 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (b )( 2) . Thi s is
a more demandingburden of proof than the one employ ed for evaluat i n g as ylum claims, which instead re quires that an a pplicant establish a “w el l -f ounded fe ar of

perse cution.” 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .1 3( b) (2 ); Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 38 4 , 391 (6th Cir. 1998). B eca use B assam has not met the lower

burden to e stablish asy lum eligibility , he ca nnot meet the more stringe nt standard f or withholding of r emoval. See B ah v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 637, 643 ( 6th Cir. 2006). D. P rote ction und er t he CAT To obtain relief under the CAT, Ba ssam must show that he would “more likely than not” be subjected to tor

ture in L ebanon. See8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 16 (c )( 2) ; Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir. 2004). The CAT doe s not require a nex us betwee n the pos sible torture and any of t he five protec ted g rounds for asylum a nd withholding of remova l. Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 414 (6th Cir. 2007). But the conce pt of t orture involves more severe treatment than perse cution. See8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2) ( “Tortur e is an extreme form of c ruel a nd inhuman treatment and does notNo. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 11 - include lesser forms of
. . . punishment that do not amount to torture.” ). An applica nt who has not de mon str a te d p a st p e rs e c uti on or a we ll- fo un de d f

e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

is the re fo re un a

ble to meet the “more likely than not” burden under the CAT. Bah , 462 F.3d at 643. We therefor e conc ur with the I J ’s conc lusion that Bassam is not elig ible for this form of r elief. E. Due P r oc e ss a nal ys is F ina lly , w e a dd

re ss B a ssa

m’ s argume nt that the I J’s f a ilure to i nc lud e B a ssa

m’ s p a ssp or

t in the re cord o f ap p ea l t o the B I A amounted to a due proce ss violation. The I J rec og nized that Ba ssam’s passport wa s rele vant, and the I J examined it during the c ourse of the proc eeding s. But the I J failed to re quest a c opy of the pa ssport from the g overnme nt attorney (who had the document in his possession at the hearing ) and ha ve it place d in the rec ord. We a re no t pe rs ua de d b y

B a ssa m’ s a rgume nt. T he Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the F if th Am end men t require s th a t a lie ns in r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s b e a ff or de d a fu ll h e ari ngthat is fundame ntally

fair. See, e .g. , De nk

o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 723-24 (6th Cir. 2003). We are satisfied that the B I A’s re view of Bassa m’s application wa s not hindered by the abse nce of

his passport in the
re c or d. Al l of

the re le va

nt f a c ts r e latin g to h is p a ssp or t—p ri mari ly

the fa c t of

his e mpl oy

me nt i n Kuwait and the dates of his travels betwe en Kuwa it and L ebanon—w ere available in the rec ord of the proc eeding s befor e the I J . And in light of the I J ’s findi n g t h at Ba s s am t estified cr edibly , no fac tual dispute about these matter s exi sted for the BIA’s conside ration on appeal. We there fore decline to r emand the c ase f or consider ation of B assam’s pa ssport by the B I A.No. 8-3924

Bassam v. Holde r

- 12 - III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we DENY Ba ssam’s petition for re view.