FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCT 17 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11668 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 79- 443- 264 K A K H A M E Z V R I S H V I L I , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 17, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he m a i n i s s ue pr e s e nt e d i n thi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s w he the rthe Im m i grat i on Judg e and the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s ( B IA ) gave r ea soned c ons i de r a t i on t o the appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um of

K a khaM e z vr i s hvi l i , ac i t i z e n of the2

R e publ i c of

G e or gi a , w ho a l l e ge d tha the ha d s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount of hi s r e l i gi on. M e z vr i s hvi l i c r e di bl yt e s t i f i e d t o i ns t a nc e s of

abus e on a c c ountof hi s bel i ef as a J ehov ah’ s W i tness , bu tthe Im m i grat i on Judg e f ou nd that M e z vr i s hvi l i l a c ke d a de qua t e know l e dge aboutorc om m i tm e ntt o tha tf a i th a nd de ni e d M e z vr i s hvi l i ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um . M e z vr i s hvi l i pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of ade c i s i on of

the B I A , w hi c h c rypt i c a l l ydi s c ount e d the f i ndi ng of the I m m i gr a t i on J udge tha tM e z vr i s hvi l i l a c ke d s uf f i c i e ntr e l i gi ous know l e dge , buta f f i rm e d the or de rof the I m m i gr a t i on J udge . B e c aus e the B I A a nd the I m m i gr a t i on J udge f a i l e d t o gi ve r e a s one d c ons i de r a t i on t o M e z vr i s hvi l i ’ s appl i c a t i on a nd m a ke adequat e f

i nd i ng s, w e grantthe pet i t i on for r evi ew , vaca t e the deci si on s of the B IA a n d th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e , a n d r e m a n df o rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A p r il 1 3 , 2 0 0 2 , M e z v r is h v ili a rr iv e da t M ia m i I n te rn a tio n a l A irp o rt in r out e t o N i c a r a guaf

r om the R e publ i c of

G e or gi a . H e r e que s t e d a s y l um i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd w a s f ound t o ha ve ac r e di bl e f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on. O n A pr i l 23, 2 0 0 3 , M e z v r is h v ili f

ile d h is ap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m . A tahe a r i ng be f

or e the I m m i gr a t i on J udge on S e pt e m be r20, 2004, M e z vr i s hvi l i t e s t i f

i e d tha the be c a m e aJ e hova h’ s W i tne s s i n F e brua ry2000 a nd h a d b e e n p e r s e c u te d in th e R e p u b lic o f G e o r g iab e c au s e o f

h is r e lig io n .3

M ez v rish v il i t es ti fied th at, i n A u g u st 2 0 0 0 , an o ff icial d en ied M ez v rish v il i’ s ap p lic a tio n f

o rajo b a s a n in v e s tig a to rw ith th e G e o r g ia n p o lic e a n dto ld M ez vri shvi l i thathe had b ee n rej ec t ed because of hi s r el i gi ou s a ff i l i at i on . In S ept em ber 200 0, M ez vri shvi l i and a grou p o f J ehov ah’ s W i tness es w er e on b uses h e a d e d to ala r g e m e e tin g o f J e h o v a h ’s W itn e s s e s a n dw e r e s to p p e db yp o lic e in ci vi l i an cl othes w ho brok e the w i nd ow s of the bu se s and beatand st on ed i nd i vi du al s, i ncl ud i ng M ez vri shvi l i . In N ov em ber 200 0, peop l e i n ci vi l i an cl othes a c c os t e d M e z vr i s hvi l i a nd agr oup of J e hova h’ s W i tne s s e s a tthe e ntr a nc e t o a J e hova h’ s W i tne s s m e e t i ng pl a c e , s e i z e d a l l the r e l i gi ous l i t e r a tur e c a rr i e d bythe g r o u p , a n d p h y s i c a l l ya n d v e rb a l l yab u s e dth e g r o u p . I n Ma r c h 2 0 0 1 , two u n if o rm e d G e o r g ia n p o lic e o f f ic e r s to o kM e z v r is h v ili f r o m in f r o n t o f h is apa rtm e ntt o al oc a t i on out s i de of the c i tya nd be a thi m f

or15 t o 20 m i nut e s . T he o ffi cers t o l d M ezv ri sh v i l i th ath e w as b eat en b ecau se h e w as a Jeh o v ah ’ s W i tn ess, i n stru ct ed h i m n o tt o rep o rtth e b eat i n g , an dl efth i m al o n e o u t si d e th e ci ty. M ez vri shvi l i t es t i fi ed that , af t erhe arri ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es , he att ended K i ngdom H a l l about20 t i m e s , butha d nota tt e nde d s i nc e F e brua ry2004, c oul d not n a m e a n yo f

th e le a d e r s o f

h is K in g d o m H a ll, a n dh a dn o t b e e n b ap tiz e d . M e z v r i s h v i l i p r o v i d e d n o d o c u me n t s i n s u p p o rto f h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, a l though the I m m i gr a t i on J udge c ons i de r e d aC ountryR e porta nd aR e l i gi ous F re edom R eportprepare d b y the U . S . S t at e D epartm ent , bo th o f w hi ch desc ri bed4

pe r s e c ut i on of

J e hova h’ s W i tne s s e s i n the R e publ i c of G e or gi a . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge a s ke d M e z vr i s hvi l i f i f ty - ni ne que s t i ons aboutthe r e l i gi ous doc tr i ne of J e h o v a h ’ s W i tn e s s e s a n d d e t e rmi n e dth a tM e z v r i s h v i l i h a do n l y“ s o me ru d im e n ta ryk n o w le d g e o f th e th e o lo g yo f

th e J e h o v a h ’s W itn e s s e s .” Th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e d e n i e dM e z v r i s h v i l i ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e . T he Im m i grat i on Judg e f

ou nd M ez vri shvi l i t o b e c re di bl e and t o h ave des cr i bed “ab u s e . . . s u f

f ic ie n t to b e p r o s e c u to ry[ s ic ] in n a tu r e ,” b u t f o u n dth a t M e z v r is h v ili

“ ha [ d] notm e thi s bur de n t o pr e s e ntapr e ponde r a nc e of c r e di bl e pr oba t i ve ev id en ce to es tab li sh th at h e is in fa ct an in d iv idu al w h o ad o p ted th e J eh o v ah ’s W i tness fa i th i n h i s hom el and o f G eorgi a and suff er ed i n thatcoun tryas a r es ul t . ” T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge “ d[ i d] notvi e w [ M e z vr i s hvi l i ] a s a de qua t e l ypos s e s s e d of f unda m e nt a l know l e dge r e ga r di ng the de nom i na t i on t o be a n i ndi vi dua l w ho f or four and a hal f y ears ha[d] been a s tud entof the deno m i nat i on ” andno t ed M e z v r is h v ili’s “f

a ilu r e to p r o v id e a n yc o rr o b o r a tio n w h a ts o e v e rr e g a r d in g h is p r o c la im e d a tte n d a n c e a t K in g d o m H a ll a f te rh is a rr iv a l in [ th e U n ite dS ta te s ].” M e z vr i s hvi l i appe a l e d the de c i s i on of the I m m i gr a t i on J udge t o the B I A , a nd th e B I A a d o p te d a n d a f f irm e d th e d e c is io n o f

th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e , a lth o u g h it not e d tha ti t“ a gr e e [ d] w i th [ M e z vr i s hvi l i ’ s ] a r gum e nton appe a l tha the s houl d not be hel d t o w es t ern st andards of re l i gi ou s kno w l edge. ” O n Jun e 1, 20 06 , w e deni ed5

M ez vri shvi l i ’ s m ot i on t o st ayhi s r em ov al , bu tthi s app ea l cont i nu es un abat ed. S ee W eng v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 28 7 F . 3d 13 35 , 13 37 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the de c i s i on of the B I A a nd the de c i s i on of the I m m i gr a t i on J udge , t o the e xt e nti tha s be e n a dopt e d bythe B I A . N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . W e r e vi e w l e ga l i s s ue s de novo, M oha m m e d v. A shcr oft , 26 1 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 -48 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ), and “ adm i ni stra t i ve fa ct f i ndi ngs unde rthe hi ghl yde f e r e nt i a l s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t , ” A de f e m i v. A s h c r o f t , 3 8 6 F. 3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , 5 4 4 U . S. 10 35 , 12 5 S . C t . 22 45 (200 5). W hen the B IA or the Im m i grat i on Judg e has fa i l ed t o “ g i v e ‘ r e a s o n e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n ’ ” o r“ ma k e ‘ a d e q u a t e f i n d i n g s , ’ ” Ta n v . U . S. A tt ’ yG e n. , 446 F . 3d 1369, 1375 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng M or a l e s v. I N S , 208 F . 3d 32 3, 32 8 (1stC i r. 20 00 )) , w e r em and for further procee di ng s bec ause w e are

“ unabl e t o r e vi e w ” the de c i s i on, i d. a t1377. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON M e z v r is h v ili p r e s e n ts tw o m a in a r g u m e n ts in h is p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . F ir s t, M e z v r is h v ili a r g u e s th a t th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e e rr o n e o u s lyf o u n dth a t h e f

a ile d to e s tab lis h p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n as ta tu to r ilyp r o te c te dg r o u n d . S e c o n d , M e z v r is h v ili a r gue s tha tthe I m m i gr a t i on J udge vi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s be c aus e the Im m i g rat i o n Ju d g e rel i ed o n fact s n o tsu p p o rt ed b y th e reco rd an dfai l ed t o ask6

Me z v r i s h v i l i wh yc o rr o b o r a t i n g d o c u m e n t s h a dn o tb e e n p r o d u c e d . B e c au s e we concl ud e thatthe B IA and the Im m i grat i on Judg e f ai l ed t o render a r ea soned d e c is io n a s to w h e th e rM e z v r is h v ili s u f f e r e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n as ta tu to r ily prot ec t ed grou nd , and v ac at e the deci si on s of the B IA and the Im m i grat i on Judg e, w e d o n o t r e a c h M e z v r is h v ili’s d u e p r o c e s s a r g u m e n t.

“ T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um ba s e d on pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the appl i c a ntm us tpr ove ( 1) thatshe w as pers ec ut ed, and (2) thatthe pers ec ut i on w as on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd , ” S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), such as rel i g i o n , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(4 2 )(A ). M ezv ri sh v i l i arg u es th ath e est ab l i sh ed p ast pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s r e l i gi on thr ough hi s c r e di bl e t e s t i m onyaboutthe i nd i vi du al s w ho as saul t ed hi m because he w as a J ehov ah’ s W i tness . T he prob l em w i th oure va l ua t i on of

thi s a r gum e ntc om e s w he n w e a tt e m ptt o r e vi e w the deci si on s of the B IA and the Im m i grat i on Judg e. T h e B I A a n d th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e d idn o t g iv e r e a s o n e dc o n s id e r a tio n to M e z v r is h v ili’s ap p lic a tio n o rm a k e a d e q u a te f in d in g s f o ra t le a s t th r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , the B I A di d notc ohe r e nt l ye xpl a i n the e xt e ntt o w hi c h i ta dopt e d the de c i s i on of the I m m i gr a t i on J udge . T he B I A “ a gr e e [ d] w i th [ M e z vr i s hvi l i ’ s ] a r gum e nton appe a l tha t[ M e z vr i s hvi l i ] s houl d notbe he l d t o w e s t e rn s t a nda r ds of r e l i gi ous k n o w le d g e ,” b u t d idn o t a rtic u la te w h e th e ro rh o w its a g r e e m e n t lim ite dits adop t i on of the deci si on of the Im m i grat i on Judg e.7

S e c ond, a f

t e rthe I m m i gr a t i on J udge f ound M e z vr i s hvi l i ’ s t e s t i m onyabout beat i ng s and other abu se cr edi bl e, the Im m i grat i on Judg e f ai l ed t o o ff

era r e a s onabl e e xpl a na t i on a s t o w hyhe f ound tha tM e z vr i s hvi l i ha d not“ a dopt e d the Je ho vah’ s W i tness fa i th i n h i s hom el and o f G eorgi a and suff er ed i n thatcoun tryas ar e s u lt.” T h e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e d idn o t m a k e a“c le a n ” a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, Y a ng v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) , a n dr e lie din s te a do n h is v ie w th a t M e z v r is h v ili ha d e xhi bi t e d i ns uf

f i c i e ntc om m i tm e ntt o the f a i th w hi l e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd h a d in s u f f ic ie n t k n o w le d g e o f

th e r e lig io u s d o c tr in e o f J e h o v a h ’s W itn e s s e s . T h is e x p la n a tio n is u n r e a s o n ab le . T he i s s ue t o be de c i de d i n the a s y l um he a r i ng i s w he the rthe appl i c a nt suff er ed re l i gi ou s per se cut i on , no tw hether he di spl ay s the kn ow l edge of a s e m i na r i a n dur i ng a“ m i ni - c a t e c hi s m a dm i ni s t e r e d a tthe he a r i ng. ” Y a n v. G onz a l e s , 438 F . 3d 1249, 1255 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “ [ D ] e t a i l e d know l e dge of [r el i gi ou s] do ctri ne m aybe i rr el evantt o the si ncer i ty of an app l i cant ’ s bel i ef [ b e c au s e ] ar e c e n t c o n v e rt m a yw e ll la c kd e ta ile dk n o w le d g e o f r e lig io u s c u s to m ,” i d. ( c i t i ng A hm a ds ha h v. A s hc r of t , 396 F . 3d 917, 920 n. 2 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ) , a nd

“ m a nyde e pl yr e l i gi ous pe opl e know ve ryl i tt l e aboutthe or i gi ns , doc tr i ne s , or even ob se rvances of thei r f ai th, ” I ao v. G on za l es , 40 0 F . 3d 53 0, 53 4 (7th C i r. 2005) . B e c aus e a n a s y l um appl i c a ntm us te s t abl i s h tha t“ the pe r s e c ut i on w a s on8

ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd , ” S i l va, 44 8 F . 3d at12 36 (e m ph as i s a dd ed), “ even a n in d iv id u a l w h o d o e s n o t s u b s c r ib e to ac e rta in r e lig io n , b u t is n o n e th e le s s . . . p e r s e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f o th e r s ’ p e r c e p tio n th a t h e d o e s , m a yw e ll b e ab le to e s t abl i s h ar e l i gi ous pe r s e c ut i on c l a i m unde rathe oryof ‘ i m put e d r e l i gi on’ a na l ogous t o the ‘ i m put e d pol i t i c a l opi ni on’ the ory , ” R i z a l v. G onz a l e s , 442 F . 3d 84 , 90 n. 7 (2d C i r. 20 06 ). S ee N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 89 (di sc ussi ng i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on theory) . M e z v r is h v ili’s c o m m itm e n t to th e J e h o v a h ’s W itn e s s f a ith w h ile in th is c o u n trya n d w h e th e rh e a d o p te d th a t f a ith in h is h o m e la n do f

G e o r g ias h o w little aboutw he the rhe s uf

f e r e d i n G e or gi aon a c c ountof hi s r e l i gi on. “ B oth hi s t orya nd c om m on s e ns e m a ke a m pl yc l e a rtha tpe opl e c a n i de nt i f yw i th ac e rt a i n r e l i gi on, no tw i thst andi ng thei r l ac k o f det ai l ed kn ow l edge abou tthatre l i gi on ’ s doctri nal t enet s, and thattho se sam e peopl e c an be pers ec ut ed for thei r r el i gi ou s a ff i l i at i on . ” R i za l , 44 2 F . 3d at90 ; se e a l so A hm adshah, 39 6 F . 3dat92 0 n . 2 (“ If [pet i t i on er ] has show n that[hi s w ou l d-be pers ec ut ors] w ou l d b el i eve thathe w as [of apart i cul ar r e lig io n ], th a t is s u f

f ic ie n t b a s is f

o rf e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n u n d e rth e la w .” ) . “T h is is no tt o saythatqu es t i on s abo utre l i gi ou s doctri ne ar e never r el evanti n ass es si ng an as yl um appl i cant ’ s c re di bi l i ty i n cl ai m i ng re l i gi ou s per se cut i on , ” R i za l , 44 2 F . 3d at 90 , because “ a purpo rt ed C hri st i an w ho di dn ’ tkn ow w ho Je sus C hri stw as , or a purport e d J e w w ho ha d ne ve rhe a r d of M os e s , w oul d be i ns t a nt l ys us pe c t , ” I a o,9

4 0 0 F .3 d a t 5 3 4 , b u t th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e d idn o t m a k e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng. T h ir d , th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e a s s u m e df a c ts n o t in th e r e c o r dw h e n h e h e ld M e z vr i s hvi l i t o al e ve l of r e l i gi ous de vot i on tha tM e z vr i s hvi l i di d nota s s e rt . T he Im m i grat i on Judg e f

ou nd thatM ez vri shvi l i ’ s a ct i on s w hi l e i n the U ni t ed S t at es w e r e “ i nc ons i s t e ntw i th as tr ong c om m i tm e ntt o [ the J e hova h’ s W i tne s s ] f a i th” a nd th at M ez v rish v il i’ s “ru d im en tary k n o w led g e o f th e th eo lo g y o f th e J eh o v ah ’s W i tne s s e s ” w a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th f oura nd aha l f

y e a r s of “ r e a di ng a nd s tudy i ng th e d e n o m in a tio n ’s p r in c ip a ls a n db e lie f s .” T h e r e c o r ds h o w s th a t M e z v r is h v ili t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d be e n af

ol l ow e rof

the J e hova h’ s W i tne s s f a i th f orf oura nd a hal f y ears and h ad re ad som e l i t er ature on h i s ow n, bu tcont ai ns no evi dence that M ez vri shvi l i had repres ent ed thathe had a strong com m i tm entt o the fa i th o r that h e h ad u n d ert ak en fo u r an d a h al f years o f act i v e stu d y. I V . CONCL US I ON B ec ause the B IA and the Im m i grat i on Judg e f ai l ed t o render a r ea soned d e c is io n in c o n s id e r a tio n o f M e z v r is h v ili’s c r e d ib le te s tim o n y , w e a r e u n ab le to re vi ew the deni al of M ez vri shvi l i ’ s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um . W e GR AN T M e z v r is h v ili’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w , VA C A TE the de c i s i ons of the B I A a nd the I m m i gr a t i on J udge , a nd RE MAND f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on.