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- 3170

___________ N O ELL Y N I CO LA S, Pet i t i oner

v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,

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 97 536 795 I m m i gr at i on J udge: M i r l ande Tadal

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay5, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay07, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM N oel l yN i col as pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed herappea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal r e mo v a l o r d e r . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.She w as eventual l yfound r emovabl e onl yon the l att ergr ound. 1 2 I . N i col as i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of H ai t i . She came t o the U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober 2007 w i th a tr ans i tvi s a, buts he di d nothave a t i cketorm oneyt o go on t o heri nt ended d e stin a tio n , B ra z il. W h e n q u e stio n e d , sh e a ss e rte d th a t sh e h a d a f e a r o f re tu rn in g to H ai t i , and s he w as pl ace d i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs . She w as char ged w i th bei ng r emovabl e fors eeki ng entr ythr ough fr aud orm i s r epr es ent i ng a mat er i al fac t , and fornot bei ng i n pos s es s i on of a va l i d i m m i gr antvi s a. She appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of 1 rem o v al an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). N i col as s oughtr el i ef ba s ed on an i nci dentthatoccurr ed i n O ct ober2005 w hen s he w as s i xt een y ear s ol d. She w as w al ki ng t o a fr i end’ s hom e t o s pend the w eeke nd, w hen s he w as abduct ed byfi ve arm ed, m as ked men, and w as for ced i nt o a ca r . T hey b li n d fo lded h er a n d ti ed h er h an d s tog ethe r an d too k h er to a n u n k n o w n loca ti o n w h ere s he w as keptfortw o and a ha l f day s . She w as pus hed, ki cked a nd beat en bec aus e s he r efus ed t o do w hattheyw ant ed. T heybeatherw i th l amps, arm s and fe et , and burned her w i th a p l a s t i c o b

j e c to n h e ra r m . S h e s t i l l r e t a i n s a s c a rf r o m th e b u rn . O n th e th i r d d a y, theyputherback i n t he ca r , dr ove fora l i t t l e t i m e, and pus hed heroutof the ca r . T hey t ol d heri f s he t ol d any one theyw oul d fi nd herand harm heragai n. She w al ked home and t ol d herm otherthats he w as bur ned w hen s he w as cooki ng w i th herfr i end. H erm other t oo k h er t o a h ospit al w here she w as treat ed an d rel eased. S he li ed to her m otherbecau se3

s he di d notw antherm othert o r eportthe i nci dentt o the pol i ce ors har e the i nform at i on w i th otherpeopl e. She di d notr eportthe i nci dentt o the pol i ce, beca us e s he bel i eved the pol i ce a r e i nvol ved i n ki dnappi ng. N i col as t es t i fi ed thats he bel i eved s he w as ki dnapped be caus e s he w as “a defe ns el es s l i t t l e gi r l , ” and be caus e s om e peopl e “a r e frus tr at ed that. . . theycannotenj oy the opportuni tythats om e peopl e do. ” A . R . 122- 23. She w as al s o aw ar e of tw o other y oung femal e s tudent s w ho had bee n ki dnapped. A . R . 123- 24. H eras y l um appl i cat i on not ed thats he s oughtr el i ef a s a mem berof a pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup; as a “s tudent [] and y oung gi r l [] . ” A . R . 229. T he I J found thatN i col as t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , butdeni ed r el i ef be caus e s he had “ not es t abl i s hed thats he w as abduct ed on ac countof atl eas tone of the ce ntr al r eas ons enumer at ed i n the A ct . ” A . R . 66. T he I J found thatN i col as had bee n a vi ct i m of cr i m e, and that“ther e ar e w i des pr ead ki dnappi ngs of ci t i zen [ s i c] of al l s oci et al s tr at a byarm ed and or gani zed c r i m i nal el ement s i n H ai t i . . . and one pa r t i cul argr oup i s nott ar get ed over anothergr oup. ” A . R . 68. T he I J ther efor e deni ed N i col as as y l um and w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l. T h e IJ a lso f

o u n d th a t N ico las h a d f a iled to sh o w th a t sh e h a d b e e n to rtu re d in the pas torw oul d l i kel ys uffe rt or tur e i n the futur e. A . R . 70. T h e B IA a g re e d th a t th e re c o rd d id n o t su p p o rt a c o n c lu sio n th a t k id n a p p in g s in H ai t i focus ed on anypart i cul argr oup, “l etal one a pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup m ade up of y oung femal e s tudent s . ” A . R . 4. T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ng “thatthe r es pondent4

di d notpr ove thatherm ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup w as orw i l l be atl eas tone centr al r eas on forthe per s ecut i on. ” I d. T he B I A al s o found heri nel i gi bl e forr el i ef unde r th e C A T , as sh e h a d “ n o t sh o w n th a t an y o n e in th e H a iti a n g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld aff i r m at i vel ycons entoracqui es ce t o hert or tur e . . . . ” I d. N i col as fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on f o rr e v i e w. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s pet i t i on forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W her e, a s h e r e , th e BI A a d o p t e d s o me o f th e f i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d ma d e a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s , we re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f

b o th th e B IA a n d th e IJ . G o m e z -Z u lu a g a v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 52 7 F . 3d 33 0, 33 9 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T o b e grant ed asy l um as a r efug ee, an ap pli cant m ust es t abl i s h thats he i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o herhom el and “be caus e of pe r s ecut i on o ra w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ). T o be ent i t l ed t o w i thhol di ng of r emoval , an appl i cantm us tpr ove thather“l i fe or f r e e d o m w o u l d b e th r e a t e n e d i n th a tc o u n try b e c a u s e o f [ h e r ] r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )( 3 ). T h u s, to b e e lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, i t is n o t en o u g h f o r N ico las to s how thats he s uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n the pas t ; s he w oul d al s o need t o s how “thatthe persecut i on w as on account of [her ] . . . m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup . . . . ” L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 170 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . Pur s uantt o the R E A L I D A ctof5

2 0 0 5 , th e “ a p p lic a n t m u s t e s ta b lis h th a t . . . m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . . . wa s o rwi l l b e a tl e a s to n e c e n tr a l r e a s o n f o rp e r s e c u t i n g th e a p p l i c a n t . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) [I N A § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ] . “[A ] s y l um m aynotbe gr ant ed i f a pr ot ect ed gr ound i s onl yan i nci dent al , t angent i al , ors uper fi ci al r eas on forper s ecut i on of an a s y l um appl i cant . ” N day s hi m i y e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 124, 130 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted). A s not ed, N i col as ar gued thats he w as and w oul d be per s ecut ed bec aus e of he r m ember s hi p i n t he part i cul ars oci al gr oup of y oung, femal e s tudent s . I n M att erof A cos t a, 1 9 I. & N . D e c . 2 1 1 , 2 3 3 (1 9 8 5 ), th e B IA su g g e ste d th a t “s e x ” m ig h t b e a n in n a te char act er i s t i c thatcoul d l i nk the mem ber s of a “ part i cul ars oci al gr oup. ” B ut

“ [ p ]o ss e ss io n o f

b ro a d ly -b a se d c h a ra c ter istics su c h a s y o u th a n d g e n d e r w ill n o t b yitse lf e n d o w in d iv id u a ls w ith m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r g ro u p .” L u k w a g o , 3 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 7 2 . Fur ther , i ti s notcl earthatN i col as ’ s att acke r s w er e mot i vat ed byhergender , hery out h, or h er status a s a stu d en t. S ee N iang v . G o n za les, 4 2 2 F . 3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 9 -12 0 0 (10 C ir . th 2005) ( focus s houl d notbe on w hethergendercan c ons t i tut e s oci al gr oup, buton w hether “mem ber s of thatgr oup ar e s uffi ci ent l yl i kel yt o be per s ecut ed thatone coul d s aythat theyar e per s ecut ed ‘ on acc ountof’ thei rm ember s hi p”) ; s ee a l s o G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F .3 d a t 3 4 5 n .1 0 (“ It is n o t n e c e ss a ryf o r u s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th is is a c o g n iza b le

‘ part i cul ars oci al gr oup’ underthe s t atut e, beca us e ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the re c o rd to c o n c lu d e th a t [ th e p e rp e tra to r] w a s n o t m o tiv a ted b yP e tit io n e r’s m e m b e rsh ip in6

a part i cul ars oci al gr oup[. ] ) . I ndeed the evi dence i n the r ecor d s how ed thatki dnappi ngs w e re w id e s p re a d in H a iti a n d n o t lim ite d to y o u n g , f e m a le s tu d e n ts . B eca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatN i col as di d not m eetherbur den of s how i ng thats he s uffe r ed per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, w e maynotgr antthe pet i t i on w i th r egar ds t o N i col as ’ s cl ai m s foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . See Zubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (a lien w h o is u n a b le to e sta b lish re f u g e e sta tu s f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

a sy lu m w ill b e u n a b le to e s ta b lis h ri g h t to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l) . III . T h e a p p li ca n t fo r reli ef

u n d er the C A T b ea rs th e b u rde n o f p rov ing that itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to th e p ro p o se d c o u n tryo f re m o v a l. 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2); see also K am ara v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 2 -13 (3d C ir . 2005) . Foran ac tt o cons t i tut e t or tur e underthe C A T , i tm us tbe: ( 1) an ac tcaus i ng s ever e phy s i cal orm ent al pai n ors uffe r i ng; ( 2) i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed; ( 3) fora pr os cr i bed p u rp o se ; (4 ) b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f o r w ith th e c o n se n t o r a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic offi ci al w ho has cus t odyorcontr ol of the vi ct i m ; and ( 5) notar i s i ng fr om l aw ful san cti o n s. Id. at 21 3 ; see a lso 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1). T h e re q u ir em en t th at th e torture be i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed r equi r es a s how i ng thatthe “pr os pect i ve t or tur erw i l l have the g o a l o rp u rp o s e o f

i n f l i c t i n g s e v e r e p a i n o rs u f f e r i n g ” o n th e p e t i t i o n e r . P i e rr e v . A t t 'y G e n ., 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (e n b a n c ). T h e “ a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic o f

f icia l”7

r equi r ementdoes notr equi r e ac tual know l edge of t or tur ous conduct , butcan be s at i s fi ed bya s how i ng thatthe governm enti s w i l l ful l ybl i nd t o the conduc ti n ques t i on orhas br eac hed i t s l egal r es pons i bi l i tyt o pr eventi t . Si l va- R engi fo v. A t t ’ yG en. , 473 F. 3d 58, 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); G o m e z - Z u lu a g a , 5 2 7 F .3 d a t 3 5 0 . W e agr ee w i th the B I A thatN i col as fai l ed t o s how thats he i s l i kel yt o be t or tur ed i n H ai t i . A l though countr yr eport s i ndi cat e thatki dnappi ng i s w i des pr ead, ther e i s no ind icati o n that an y o n e w il l kidn ap N icolas w ith the “ sp ec ifi c inten t” t o tortu re h er. I f ther e i s no evi dence thatthe “pr os pect i ve t or tur erw i l l have the goal orpurpos e of in f lic tin g s e v e re p a in o r s u f f e ri n g ,” th e s p e c if

ic in te n t r e q u ir e m e n t o f C A T is n o t f

u lf ille d . P ierre, 5 2 8 F . 3 d at 19 0 . T h is sho w ing is r eq u ir ed ev en w h en the c o n d it ion s in the co u n try of r emoval ar e s uch thatr emoval i s l i kel yt o r es ul ti n harm t o the pet i t i oner . I d. at191 (d e n y in g C A T re lief

w h e re p e tit io n e r w a s lik e lyto e x p e rie n c e p a in a n d su f f e rin g d u e to poorcondi t i ons i n H ai t i an pr i s ons , butfai l ed t o s how thatH ai t i an off i ci al s had the s peci fi c i nt entt o i nfl i cts ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng bypl aci ng hi m i n det ent i on upon r emoval ) . I tappea r s thatN i col as w as the vi ct i m of a r andom cr i m i nal act , and w as not s in g le d o u t f

o r t h e s p e c if

ic p u rp o s e o f

b e in g to rt u re d . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.