Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60150 Su m m ar y Cal endar

AAM I R AHMED, P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L, Res po nde nt

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 88 060 275

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Pet i t i o ne rAa m irAh m e d(“Ah m e d”) , an a tivea nd c i t i z e n o f Pak i s t an, s e e ks
rev i ew of a n ord er of the B oa rdof Im m i gr a ti on A p p ea l s (“B IA ”). T h e B IA d is m is s e dA h m e d ’ s a p p e a l o f th e Im m i g r a tio n J u d g e ’ s (“I J ”) d e n ia l o f h is ap pli c at i o ns f

o rw i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va l , pr o t e c t i o n pu r s uantt o t he r e gul at i o ns United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 23, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2010N o. 09- 60150

2 u n der t h e U n i t ed N at i o nsCon ven t i on A gainstT ort u re (“ C A T ” ) , an d can cell ati on o f r e m o va l

. W e de ny t he pe t i t i o n. I

. B AC KGR OUND A h m ed i s a native an d ci t i zen of P ak i st an , w h o w as adm i t t ed to t h e U n i t ed St at e s a s at e m po r ary vi s i t o ron ora bo utApr i l2 4, 1 99 5. On A pr i l2 7, 2 00 7, t he D ep a rtm en t of

H om ela n d S e cu ri ty (“ D H S ”) serv edA h m edw i tha N oti ce to Ap p e a r(“ N TA” ) , c har gi ng hi m w i t h r e m o vab ilityp u r s u a n tt os e c ti o n2 3 7 ( a) ( 1 ) (B) of t h e I N A , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 2 7 (a )(1)(B ) , as an a l i en w h o rem ai n ed i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates f or a t i m e l on ger t h an p e rm itted

. Th e D H S also ch a rg edA h m edw i th
r e m o vabil i t y pur s uantt o s e c t i o n 2 3 7 (a )(3 )(D ) o f th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1227 (a )(3 )(D ), a s a n a lie n w h o fa ls e ly r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f t o be a c i t i z e n o f t he U ni t ed St a t e s i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a b e ne f i t un d e r t he I N A o r a ny o t he rfede r al l aw. Thi s c har gea r o s e o uto f Ahm e d fal s e l y r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m s el f to b e a U

. S. cit i zen i n order t o obtai n a voterregi st rat i on cer t i f i cat e i n H arri s C ou n t y, T exas. O n Se pt e m be r 19 , 200 7, Ahm e d a ppe ar e d b e f o r e t he I J, a dm i t t i ng t he all e ga t i o ns i n t he N TAb utde ni e d r e m o vabil i t y pur s uantt o s e c t i o n 2 3 7 (a)(3)(D ). A t a h ea ri n g re ga rd i n g th a t cha rg e, the IJ fou n dth a t th e G ov ern m en t m et i ts burde n of

pr ovi ng t hatA hm ed s ubm i t t ed the vo t err egi st r at i on appl i c at i on by
c le a ra n dco n v in c in ge v id e n c e . O n M arch 20 , 200 8, A h m ed ap pea red aga i n i n I m m i grati on C o u rt for a
m e r i t s he ar i ng regar di ng hi s a ppli c at i o ns f o rw i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va la nd protec t i on pu rsuan tt o C A T based on reli gi on . H e cl ai m ed that as a f orm er M u sli m , w h o con ve rtedto C h ri sti a n i ty , h e fear edpe rsec u ti on if retu rn edto P a k is ta n . H e a ls o s o u g h t a ca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. T o s u p p o r t h is a p p lic a tio n s , Ah m e dte s tifie dth a t h e fe a r e dt h a t h e w o u ld be ki l l ed byeit herhi s fam i l y o ranot herM usli m if he r et urned t o Paki st an becau se he i s now a C h ri st i an . W h en qu estio n ed ab ou tth e circum st an ces
su rrou n d i n g h i s co n v e r s i on to C h ri sti a n i ty, A h m edcl a i m edtha t he de ci d edto Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2010N o. 09- 60150

3 b e c o m e a C h r is tia n w h ile in th e h o s p ita l inth e w a k e o f ab e a tin gh e s u ffe r e din N ew Y ork. H e al so t est i f i ed th at h e att en ded chu rch regularly bu tha d n otbeen in th r e e o rfo u rm o n th s . M o r e o v e r , d u r i n gh is te s tim o n yA h m e dcla im e dth a t h is re m o v a l w o u ld
r e s u lt in e x c e p tio n a l a n d e x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l h a r d s h ip to h is y o u n gd a u g h te r , a U n i tedS tates citi ze n . H e testi fi edtha t he w ou l dn ot b e a b l e to b ri n g h er w i th h im to P a k is ta n b e c a u s e h is fa m ilyo ro th e rM u s lim s w ill k ill h e rb e c a u s e s h e is
a C h ri st i an . W h en qu est i on ed ab ou tal l eged l y si gn i n g t h e vot er r egi st rat i on cert i f i cat e cl ai m i n g t o be a U n i t ed S t ates cit i zen, h e a dm i t t ed t h at th e si gn ature
a p p e a r e dto b e h is o w n b u t c la im e dth a ta c o u s in m ig h t h a v e fo r g e dh is
s i g n a t u r e b e c a u s e h e w a s j e a l o u s o f h i m. The I J de ni e d Ahm e d’ s a ppli c at i o n f o rw i t hhol di ng o f

r e m o va la nd protec t i on pu rsuan tt o C A T b ecau se h e foun d t h at A h m ed’ s test i m on y w as not
c r e d ib le d u e to n u m e r o u s in c o n s is te n c ie s . T h e IJ a ls o n o te dth a t e v e n if A h m ed’ s t est i m on y w a s t rue, hi s app li cat i on f or w i t h h ol di n g an d p rot ect i on purs uant t o CA T w oul d notbe gr ant ed be c ause he di d notdem ons t r at e a n o bje c tiv e cle a rp r o b a b ilityo f p e r s e c u tio n if re tu r n e dto P a k is ta n o rth a t itis
m ore li kely th an not t h at h e w i l l be persecuted or t ort u red u pon h i s ret u rn there. T h e IJ a ls o d e n ie dA h m e d ’ s a p p lic a tio n fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. I I

. DI S CUS S I ON A

. W ith h o ld in go f R e m o v a l a n dC A T C la im W e r evi ew t he B IA ’ s deni alof an appl i c at i on for w i thhol di ng of r em oval
a n dp r o te c tio n u n d e rC A T u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t. U n d e rth is
s t and ar d o f

r e vi e w , r e ve r s ali s i m pr o pe runl e s s w e de c i de “not on l y t hatt he
e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts aco n tr a r yco n c lu s io n , b u t a ls o th a t t h e e v id e n c e c o m p e ls it.” Zh ao v. G on zales , 404 F. 3d 295, 306 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (c i t i ng Ch u n v . I NS , 40 F. 3d 7 6 , 7 8 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e r e v ie w th e B IA ’s d e c is io n a n do n lyc o n s id e rth e I J ’s Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2010N o. 09- 60150

4 d e c is io n to th e e x te n t t h a t itim p a c te dth e B IA ’ s d e te r m in a tio n . W ang v. Hol d er , 5 6 9 F .3 d5 3 1 , 5 3 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). I n t hi s c as e , t he I J de ni e d Ahm e d’ s pe t i t i o n f o rw i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va la nd pr o t e c t i o n und e rC A T b ecau s e he ha d fail e d t o m e e thi s b ur de n o f pr o vi ng el i gibi l i t y by p rovi di n g credibl e evi den ce t o sup port h i s cl ai m s . Th e R ealI D A ct
o f 2 00 5 all o w s t he t r i e ro f fac tt o m ak e acredi bil i t y de t e r m i nat i o n “w i t ho ut regard to w h et h er an i n consi st en cy, i n accuracy, or fal sehoodgoes t o t h e hea rt of th e a p p l i ca n t’ s cl a i m . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 11 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(ii i). A d ve rse cre d ib i l i ty determ i n ati on s m u stbe sup ported by specif i c an d c ogen treasons derivedf rom th e re c o r d

. Zh ang v. G on zalez , 4 3 2 F .3 d3 3 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Th e I J det er m i ned t hatA hm ed w as notc r edibl e, and he fai l s t o s how , as h e m u st t o preva i l on revi ew , t h at t h e recor d evi den ce com pel s th e con t rary c o n c lu s io n . T h e IJ cit e dn u m e r o u s i n s ta n c e s o f m a te r ia l in c o n s is te n c ie s in Ahm e d’ s t e s t i m o ny. F or i ns t anc e , w hi l e Ahm e d i ndi c at e d i n hi s a s ylum ap pli c at i o n t hat he w as f o r c e d t o pr ac t i c e I s l am unde r t he t hr e at o f de ath, a nd th a t h e p r o te s te da g a in s t t h is , h e d e n ie dth a t h e p r o te s te da g a in s t Is la m in h is te s tim o n y . W h ile h e cla im e dto fe a rp e r s e c u tio n inP a k i s t a n b e c a u s e o f h is pur po r t e d r e l i gi o us c o nve r s i o n, Ahm e d’ s t e s t i m o ny w as al so i nc o ns i s t e nt
c o nc e r ni ng hi s c hur c h a t t e nda nc e . H e ini t i all y c l ai m e d thathe di d no ta t t e nd chu rch regul arl y, bu tl aterst ated t h at he atten d e d th ree dif ferent c h u rches al t h ou gh he c o ul d no tr e c i t e b as i ci nf o r m at i o n a bo uta ny o f t he c hur c h es, i nc l udi ng t he i rna m e s o rl o c at i o ns . M o r e o ve r , t he r e c o r d r eveal s s i gnif i c ant di scr epa n ci es r egard i n g ho w e xa c tly Ah m ed’ s s i gn ature app eared u pon t h e vot er
r e gi s t r at i o n c e r t i f

i c at e , hi s kno w l e dg e c o nc e r ni ng w he n hi s v i sa ex pir e d, a nd
r e a s o n s fo rs ta y in ginth e U n ite dS ta te s a fte rh is v is ae x p ir e d

. O n a ppe al , A h m ed f i r s ta r gue s t hatt he I J e r r e d b e c aus e a ny i n con sist en ci es in h i s testi m on y re ga rd i n g w h eth er h e con ve rtedto C h ri sti a n i ty
w e r e i nc o ns e que nt i al

. Thi s a r gum e ntha s no m e r i t
. The c e nt r alr e as o n why Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2010N o. 09- 60150

5 A h m edcl a i m edtha t his rem ov a lsh ou l dbe w i th h eld is beca u se h e a lle g e d ly
w ou l dbe pe rsec u tedu p on h i s retu rn to P a k i stan be ca u se o f h i s con ve rsionto Chri s t i anit y. Thus , a ny i nc o ns i s t e nc i e s i n hi s t e s t i m o n yc o n c e r ni ng hi s r e l i gi o us conversi on w ere m ater i al , pa rtic ul arl y si n ce he al l egedt h at he w ou l d be tor t u red b e c a u s e o f it. A hm ed nex tar gues t hatt he var i ous i nco nsi st enc i es i n hi s t es t i m ony that t h e I J n ot ed w ere th e res u l tof hi s in a b il it y t o un derst an d E n gl i sh. B ecau se A h m e d d i d n ot ra i se th i s a rg u m en t b efore t h e B IA , h e ha s n ot ex h a u stedh is
a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . A s s u c h , t h is co u r t la c k s ju r is d ic tio n to co n s id e rth is
a r g u m e n t. S ee8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); W ang v. A sh cr oft , 260 F. 3d 448, 452- 53 ( 5th Ci r . 2 001)

. Si m i l ar l y, w e l ac k j ur i s di c t i o n t o a ddr e s s Ahm e d’ s a r gum e nt t hatt he I J e r r ed be c ause he m i st akenl y r ef er enc ed “L eb a n on ” r at hert han “P a k is ta n ” w h ile d is c u s s in gco u n t r yc o n d itio n s fo rC h r is tia n s . T h e B IA , in revi ew i n g t h e I J’ s deci si on , di d n otadop tt h e IJ’ s di scussi on of current c ou n t ry cond iti on s inP ak i sta n , w h ich in clu d e dth e m ista k e n re fer e n ce to L eban onrath er th a n P a k is ta n . S e eGi r mav . I NS , 2 83 F. 3d6 64 , 6 66 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2) (w he r e t he B IAdoes not adop tt h e deci si on of t h e IJ, t h e IJ’ s deci si on i s n otbef ore th e court
o n re v iew ). B

. C ance l l at i on o f R em oval T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s d is c r e tion to c a n ce l th e re m o v a l of a
no n- p e r m a ne ntr e s i d e ntif t hea l i e n ha s s ho wn: ( 1 ) ac o nt i nu o us p hy si c al p r e s e n c e o f n o t les s th a n 1 0 y e a r s ; (2 ) g o o dm o r a l ch a r a c te r ; (3 ) ala c ko f c e r ta in cri m i n alconvi ct i on s; a n d ( 4) excepti on alan d extrem el y u n u sua lha rdship t o a q u a li fy in gr e la t iv e . I N A§ 2 4 0 A (b ); 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b ). O n a p p e a l, A h m e d ’s
c la im s th a t th e IJ a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in gh is ca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l,
a n dr u l i n gt h a t A h m e dh a dn o t e s ta b lis h e dth a t h is re m o v a l w o u ldre s u lt in

“ excepti on alan d extrem el y u n u sua lha rdship” t o hi s c h i l d p u rsuan tt o sec t i on 2 4 0 A (b )(1 )(D ) o f th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 )(D ). Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/2010N o. 09- 60150

6 Pu r suan t to 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) (i) , t hi s c our tdoe s nothave juri sdi ct i on t o revi ew “ an y j u dg m en tregardi n g t h e gran t i n g of reli ef un der sect i on . . . 229 b. ” T h i s provi si on is n o t a p p l i cabl e w h ere th e app eali n volves c o n s t i t u t i o n a lc l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w. S ee8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). A h m e d ’s
r e q u e s t fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l, h o w e v e r , in v o lv e s n e ith e r . T h e r e fo r e , th is court does n ot h ave j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t h e IJ’ s di scr et i on ar yd e term i n ati on t hatA hm ed’ s daughter, w ho i s an A m er i c an c i t i ze n, w oul d nots uf feran “e x c e p tio n a l a n de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h a r d s h ip ” b yh is re m o v a l. SeeR ueda v. A sh cr oft , 3 8 0 F .3 d8 3 1 , 8 3 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Mire les -V a ld ezv. A sh cr oft , 349 F. 3d 2 1 3 , 2 1 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). O u rh o ld in gth a t w e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w o n e o f th e fo u rth r e s h o ld
e l i gibil i t y fac t o r s und e r§ 2 40 A(b) i s as uf f i c i e ntb as i s a l o ne f

o rus t o a f

f i r m t he I J’ s deni alof

r e l i e f

. Fo rt h i s r e a s o n , we n e e dn o ta d d r e s s t h e o t h e rg r o u n ds
u p o n w h ic h A h m e dch a lle n g e s th e IJ ’ s d e c is io n . See G arc i a- Me le n d ez v. A sh cr oft , 3 5 1 F .3 d6 5 7 , 6 6 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I I I

. C ONC L US I ON F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e da b o v e , weDE NYt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. Case: 09-60150 Document: 00511033864 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/23/2010