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 4-18-2005 

# Awa a deh 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 . 04-1973

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Awa a deh v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1346. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1346NOT 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. 04- 1973

____________ S A M IH T H U L E R A B U A W A A D E H ,

P eti ti o n er v . * A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f T h e U n ite d S ta te s , R e sp o n d e n t * (A m en d ed p u rsua n t t o R u le 43 (c), F ed . R . A p p . P ro.)

____________________ ON PETI TI ON FOR REV I EW OF O RD ER O F THE BO AR D O F I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

( N o. A 79- 164- 246)

___________________ Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 31, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , SM I T H , and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed : A p ri l 18 , 2 0 0 5 )

____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________-2-

P E R C U R I A M: Sam i h T hul erA bu A w aade h ( “A w aade h”) , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of B r azi l and a pr act i ci ng M us l i m , s eeks r evi ew of a de ci s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “the B I A ”) . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deni al of A w aade h’ s appl i cat i ons for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) , and p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rt h e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ t h e T o r tu r e Co n v e n t i o n ” ) . As we w ri te fo r th e p arti es o n ly , w e d o n o t seto u t th e f ac ts. W e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w e denyA w aade h’ s pet i t i on. I. B ec au se A w aa d eh d o es n o t r aise a n yarg u m en t i n h is brief reg ard ing the B IA ’s deni al of pr ot ect i on undert he Tortur e C onvent i on bey ond t he conc l us orys t at ementthat t he B I A err ed i n deny i ng pr ot ect i on, he has notpr es erved the i s s ue forr evi ew . L i e v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 , n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). II. T hi s C our tw i l l aff i r m t he B I A ’ s deci s i on thatA w aade h w as notel i gi bl e foras y l um if th e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt it. I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . T he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa cts uppor t i ng a fi nal or derof r emoval cannotbe r ever s ed unl es s t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d i s s uch that“a r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( A )- (B ). A n ap pli cant for as y l um bears the b urden o f est abli shi ng that he has suffered p ast-3-

p erse cu ti o n o r ha s a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a)- ( b) ; A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I f an a ppl i cantcannotm eet t he s t andar d foras y l um , t hi s C our tm ayas s um e thatthe appl i cantcannotm eetthe hi gher stan d ard fo r w ith h o lding rem o v al. L u k w ag o v . A sh cro ft, 3 2 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III . T o q u a lifyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, an a lien m u st s h o w th a t if h e re tu rn e d to h is countr y , i ti s m or e l i kel yt han nott hathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccount of r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. S enathi raj ah v . IN S , 15 7 F . 3d 21 0, 21 5 (3d C i r. 19 98 ). If an al i en is able t o est abli sh pas tper s ecut i on, t hen i ti s pr es um ed thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened w er e he t o return t o h i s coun t ry . 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 (b) (1) (i ) ( 20 04 ). “In order t o est abli sh el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um on t he bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on, an appl i cantm us ts how ( 1) an i nci dent , ori nci dent s , t hatr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on; ( 2) thati s on acc ountof one of t he s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i s comm i t t ed bythe governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei t herunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” A dul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).

“‘ [P] er s ecut i on’ i s an extr eme conceptthatdoes noti ncl ude eve r ys or tof tr eatm ent o u r soc ietyreg ard s as o ff en sive . ” F ati n v . IN S , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); acc or d Fi s herv. I N S, 79 F. 3d 955, 961 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( en banc ) ( “Per s ecut i on i s an-4-

extr eme concept , w hi ch or di nar i l ydoes noti ncl ude ‘ [d] i s cr i m i nat i on on t he bas i s of r ace orr el i gi on, as m or al l yr epr ehens i bl e as i tm aybe. ’ ” ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o N el s on v. I N S, 232 F. 3d 258, 263 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( “To qual i fyas per s ecut i on, a per s on’ s exper i ence m us tr i s e above unpl eas antnes s , har as s m ent , and eve n b asic su ff

ering . ”). A w a a d e h a lleg e s th a t h e su f f e re d th re e in c id e n ts o f

stre e t v io len c e in h is y e a rs in B r azi l — one i nvol vi ng non- B r azi l i an s ki nheads , one i nvol vi ng per s ons gather ed out s i de a chur ch he w as pas s i ng by , and one i nvol vi ng the fr i ends of a l oan s hark s eeki ng r epaym ent . T he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatthes e att acks di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . V i ct i m s of di s cr i m i nat i on and r andom v iolen ce o f th e so rtA w aa d eh all eg es a re n o t victi m s o f p erse cu ti o n as leg all yd ef ined . In p a rticu lar , the a lleg e d a ttac k b yth e lo a n sh a rk a n d h is f rie n d s d o e s n o t co n stitu te p e rs e c u tio n b e c a u s e it w a s n o t o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . On Awa a d e h ’ s o wn tel li n g , the lo an sh ark w as a tt em p ti n g to o b tai n A w aa d eh ’s m o n ey , n o t seek ing to h arm A w aade h on acc ountof hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. M o re o v e r, itis a g a in st th e law in B ra z il fo r in d iv id u a ls o r g ro u p s to e n g a g e in per s ecut i on, and, acc or di ng t o t he St at e D epart m ent , the B r azi l i an governm entenfor cesT h e a b b re v iatio n “ A .R .” re f e rs to th e C e rtifie d A d m in istra tiv e R e c o rd o n f ile w ith 1 th e C o u rt. -5- t he l aw . A . R . 310. B eca us e the evi dence i ndi cat es thatthe B r azi l i an governm ent 1 at t empt s t o combats uch ac t s , and bec aus e A w aade h nevergave the B r azi l i an governm ent t he oppor tuni t yt o do s o, he ca nnots how thatthe B r azi l i an governm enti s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o pr ot ecthi m . A dul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at592. Fi nal l y , A w aade h admi t s t hatbey ond t he i nci dent s he des cr i bes i nvol vi ng di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns thi m s el f, hi s father , and hi s br other , he has no per s onal know l edge of M usl i m s i n B razi l being dis cri m i nated againstbased o n thei r r el i gion, m uch l ess per s ecut ed fori tas t hatl at t ert erm i s defi ned. T he new s ar t i cl es he s ubm i t t ed do not d e sc rib e a n yin sta n c e s o f p e rse c u tio n e ith e r. T h u s, th e re is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor t , m uch l es s compel , t he conc l us i on thatther e i s a patt ern orpr act i ce of per s ecut i ng p e rso n s s im ilarlysitu a ted to A w a a d e h , an d A w a a d e h c a n n o t b e re liev e d o f th e d u tyto d e mo n s t r a t e t h a th e h a s b e e n o rwo u l d b e i n d i v i d u a l l yt a r g e t e d f o rp e r s e c u t i o n . 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 (b)(2 )(i )(A )-( B ); A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). I V. A s A w a a d e h f

a iled to e sta b lish h is e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m , h e n e c e ss a rilyf a iled to m eett he hi ghers t andar d of el i gi bi l i t yforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . See Lukaw ago, 329 F .3 d a t 1 8 2 .V.

Fort he r eas ons gi ven above , w e denyA w aade h’ s pet i t i on.