2009 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 5-22-2009 

# Utp al D es ai v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 09-1480

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Utp al D e s ai v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1321. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1321CL D- 1 8 8 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. 09- 1480

___________ U T P A L A JIT K U M A R D E S A I, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 037- 061- 888) I m m i gr at i on J udge: Susa n G . R oy

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ay14, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay22, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM U tpal A j i t kum arD es ai , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es as a l aw ful per m anentr es i denti n 1980. O n J une 4, 2008, D es ai w as s er ved w i t h aA thi s he a r i ng , D e s a i t e s t i fi e d t o h a vi ng fu l l - bl own A I D S. 1 2 not i ce t o appea ral l egi ng t hathe w as s ubj ectt o r emoval underI N A §§ 237( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) and 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii) f

o r th e f o llo w in g o f

f e n se s: (1 ) p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e in 2002; and ( 2) t hi r d degr ee thefti n 1994. A thi s r emoval hear i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) found t hatD es ai w as s ubj ectt o r emoval as char ged i n t he not i ce t o appea r . D es ai s oughtdefe r r al of r emoval undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. D es ai al l eged thathe fac ed di s cr i m i nat i on and per s ecut i on i f he r etur ned t o I ndi a bec aus e he i s H I V - pos i t i ve and w oul d notr ece i ve pr operm edi cal t r eatm ent . D es ai al s o al l eged thathe w oul d be 1 det ai ned and s ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on byt he governm entand pol i ce i n I ndi a bec aus e of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yi n t he U ni t ed St at es . T he I J deni ed r el i ef a nd t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) uphel d t he I J ’ s deci s i on. T hr ough couns el , D es ai fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew . T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance and D e s a i h a s f

ile d a re s p o n s e . 

### W e have jur i s di c t i on ove r De s a i ’ s pe t i t i on for

r e vi e w pur s uant

t o INA § 242. The pe t i t i on pr e s e nt s aque s t i on of l aw, one c onc e rni ng the pr ope r l e ga li nt e r

pr e t at i on of t ort ur e . W e r e vi e w that

que s t i on de novo. Pi e rr e v. Att ’ y Ge n. , 528 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (enb an c). We m ay summ arily

d eny a p etitio nf

o r rev iewth at p resen ts u s w ith no s ub s t ant i a lqu e s t i on . 3dCi r . LA R 2 7. 4 andI . O. P. 10 . 6. Fo r the r e a s on s that

fo l l ow , we wi l ldo s o. I n or dert o obt ai n defe r r al of r emoval , D es ai m us ts how t hati ti s m or e l i kel yt han3

nott hathe w i l l be t or tur ed i f r etur ned t o I ndi a. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 17( a) . H e musts how a s peci fi c i nt entt o t or tur e, i . e. , “t hathi s pr os pect i ve t or tur erw i l l have the mot i ve or p u rp o se to c a u se h im p a in o r su f f e rin g .” P ier re , 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 9 . A n a c t is to rtu re if it i s inten ti o n all yinf

li cted o n a p erso n fo r t h e p u rpo ses o f o b tai n ing inf o rm ati o n o r a confe s s i on, puni s hm ent , i nt i m i dat i on orcoer ci on, orforanyr eas on bas ed on di s cr i m i nat i on of anyki nd, byt he i ns t i gat i on orw i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of a p u b li c o ff

ici al or o ther p erso n ac ti n g in an o ff ici al ca p ac ity . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 7 (a). T he B I A corr ect l yconcl uded thatD es ai fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatt he governm entof I ndi a had a nys peci fi c i nt entorm ot i ve t o t or tur e hi m . See Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at189. T he p a in a n d su f

f e rin g D e sa i cla im e d th a t h e w o u ld e x p e rie n c e a s a re su lt o f e ith e r in a d e q u a te m e d ica l trea tm e n t o r b e in g d e tain e d u p o n re tu rn to In d ia w o u ld n o t, as th e B IA c o rre c tly not ed, be the r es ul tof anys peci fi c i nt entt o t or tur e byt he I ndi an governm ent , butan uni nt ended c ons equenc e of medi cal car e thati s defi ci entcompar ed t o w hathe i s now r ece i vi ng. See Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at189 ( “The l ack of m edi cal car e and l i kel ypai n t hat[a p e tit io n e r] w ill e x p e rie n c e [ in d e ten tio n ] is a n . . . u n in ten d e d c o n se q u e n c e . . . tha t . . . is n o t th e typ e o f

p ro s c ri b e d p u rp o s e c o n te m p la te d b yth e C A T .” ). Si m i l ar l y , t he B I A cor r ect l yhel d t hatD es ai fai l ed t o s how t hatanydi s cr i m i nat i on t hathe mayfac e i n I ndi a, bas ed on hi s H I V s t atus , w oul d be di r ect ed orencour aged by th e g o v e rn m e n t o f

In d ia, b u t ra th e r is g e n e ra l d isc rim in a tio n th a t d o e s n o t co n stitu te t or tur e. See i d. G i ven the l ack of evi dence t hatD es ai w oul d be s i ngl ed outfort or tur e,4

t he B I A di d noter ri n concl udi ng t hatD es ai fai l ed t o m eett he r equi r ement s forr el i ef u n d e rCA T. A s this ap p ea l prese n ts no su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l gran t th e G o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on fors um m aryact i on. See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4 and 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6.