2010 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 Third C ir c uit 1-19-2010 

# V it aliy Andreyev v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4342

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " V it al iy Andr eyev v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2042. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/2042D L D - 0 7 9 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- 4342

___________ VI T AL I Y I VANOV I CH ANDR E YE V, 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 e s p o n d e n t O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der 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 089- 239- 565 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A ndr ew R . A r thur

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary19, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerV i t al i yI vanovi ch A ndr ey ev s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval iss u e d b yth e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s m o v e d to s um m ar i l yaff

i r m the B I A ’ s deci s i on. B eca us e the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al2

q u e s tio n , w e w ill g ra n t th e m o tio n a n d d e n yA n d re y e v ’s p e titio n . I. A ndr ey ev i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of U kr ai ne w ho ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1996 a s a n o n -im m ig ra n t v isito r a n d re m a in e d in th e U n ited S tate s a f ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

h is vi s a. I n M ar ch 2009, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi ni t i at ed r emoval p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t A n d re y e v f o r r e m a in in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t a u th o ri z a tio n . S ee Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”) § 2 3 7 (a)(1)(B ). A n d rey ev ap p ea red b ef o re an I m m i gr at i on J udge, and el ect ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e. A ft erfi ndi ng thatA ndr ey ev w as notel i gi bl e foranyr el i ef f r om r emoval , the I m m i gr at i on J udge or der ed hi m r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es t o U kr ai ne. A ndr ey ev appe al ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on t o the B I A , ar gui ng thathe w as depr i ved of due pr oces s beca us e he w as notgi ven an oppor tuni tyt o ar gue hi s el i gi bi l i tyfordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef f r om r emoval , i ncl udi ng asy lum . T h e B IA co n d u cted a d e n o v o rev iew an d af firm ed the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s deci s i on, fi ndi ng thatA ndr ey ev had be en pr ovi ded w i th a ful l and fa i rhear i ng, and that he had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a f

actual bas i s t o s uppor ta cl ai m foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l, o r c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l. S til l p ro c e e d in g p ro se , A n d re y e v f iled a m o tio n to sta yre m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s in this C ou rt , argui ng chiefl ythat hi s r em ov al proceed i ng w as fun dam ental l yun fai r because he w as depr i ved of hi s r i ghtt o be r efe rr ed t o an as y l um offi cerfora “r eas onabl e fe ar det erm i nat i on” pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 31. A ndr ey ev al s o ar gues thathe w as notA lth o u g h the G o v ern m en t fi led a m o ti o n see k ing w h at i t call ed “su m m ary 1 aff i r m ance ” of the B I A ’ s deci s i on, the C our tunder s t ands the G overnm entactual l yt o be s e e k in g a s u m m a ry d e n ia l o f A n d re y e v ’s p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . 3 i nform ed of hi s pot ent i al el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , orcanc el l at i on of r emoval , and thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge and BIA fai l ed t o eval uat e thes e cl ai m s on the m er i t s . T he G overnm enthas m oved fors um m aryaff i r m ance of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. 1 A n d re y e v h a s f

ile d n o o p p o s itio n . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 2 (a ). C h a v a rria v . G o n z a lez , 4 4 6 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). B e c a u se th e B IA iss u e d its ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I m m i gr at i on J udge. See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e r evi ew the dec i s i on of the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e to th e e x tent that the B IA d ef ers to o r ad o p ts th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s rea so n ing . S ee C h av arria, 4 4 6 F . 3 d at 51 5 . W e re v iew fa ctua l determ ination s o f th e B IA underthe def

er ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. I d. U nderthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence st and ard, the B IA ’s fi nd i ng s “m ustbe u ph el d u nles s the ev i den ce no ton l ysupp ort s a co n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O u r rev iew o v er the B IA ’s co n clus ion s o f law is plen ary . R o m an ishyn v . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . An d r e y e v a r g u e s th a th e wa s d e p r i v e d o f a f a i ro p p o r tu n i tyt o p r e s e n th i s c l a i ms4

f o r im m ig ra tio n re lief. In th e im m ig ra tio n c o n tex t, du e p ro c e ss e n tit les a n a lien to “ a f u ll and fa i rhear i ng and a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o pr es entevi dence . ” R om ani s hyn, 455 F. 3d at185. T he r ecor d r evea l s no vi ol at i on of due pr oces s . See K han v. A t t ’ yG en. , 448 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A n d re y e v w a s in f o rm e d b yth e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e o f h is r i ghtt o r et ai n couns el and w as pr ovi ded w i th a l i s tof l ow cos tand pr o- bono l egal s ervi ces pr ovi der s . A . R . 61- 62. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge off er ed A ndr ey ev a c ont i nuance in o rde r t o retain c o u n sel, an d A n d rey ev elec ted to p roc ee d p ro se . A . R . 6 2 . A n d rey ev ’s rig h ts o f e v id e n c e a n d a p p e a l w e re e x p lain e d to h im , an d h e w a s g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re ss th e c o u rt. A .R . 6 2 , 6 5 . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e a lso q u e stio n e d A n d re y e v to ens ur e thathe had no vi abl e cl ai m s forr el i ef. A . R . 64- 65. Forthes e r eas ons , w e r ej ect A n d re y e v ’s d u e p ro c e s s c la im . A n d re y e v n e x t ar g u e s th a t p u rsu a n t to 8 C .F .R . § § 1 2 0 8 .3 1 a n d 1 2 3 8 .1 , h e sh o u ld hav e been referred t o an asy l um off i cer for a “r easona ble feardeterm i nati on ” t o est abli sh hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um . T hi s r equi r ementi s appl i cabl e onl yt o i ndi vi dual s w ho have b e e n o rd e re d re m o v e d f o r c o m m ittin g a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n yp u rs u a n t to IN A § 2 3 8 (b ). A n d re y e v w a s c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili tyu n d e r IN A § 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(B ) f o r o v e rsta y in g h is vi s a. N othi ng i n the r ecor d s ugges t s thatA ndr ey ev w as or der ed r emoved i n connec t i on w i th a fe l onyconvi ct i on, orthathe i s otherw i s e ent i t l ed t o a “r eas onabl e fe ar det erm i nat i on” pur s uantt o 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 31. Fur therm or e, beca us e A ndr ey ev w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs befor e he f i l ed anyappl i cat i ons fori m m i gat i on r el i ef, the5

pr operoffi ci al t o adj udi cat e anyappl i cat i ons w oul d have be en an i m m i gr at i on j udge and n o t an a sy lu m o f

f ice r. S e e 8 C .F .R . § § 2 0 8 .2 (b ), 2 0 8 .4 . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e in th is cas e di d i n fac tcons i derw hetherA ndr ey ev had a nybas i s fori m m i gr at i on r el i ef, and found thathe di d not . T he B I A al s o cons i der ed thes e cl ai m s , and made a de novo det erm i nat i on thatA ndr ey ev had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a pr operfac tual bas i s fora cl ai m for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, or c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. N o th in g in th e re c o rd su g g e sts th a t th e B IA e rre d in re a c h in g its c o n c lu s io n . I n hi s decl ar at i on on appea l t o the B I A , A ndr ey ev s t at ed thathe ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1996 due t o m ount i ng conce rns aboutm as s unempl oym ent , poverty , and corrupt i on i n hi s nat i ve U kr ai ne. A . R . 10- 11. H e al s o s t at ed thathe bec ame afr ai d aft er tw o f ri e n d s o f h is w e re b e a te n b yla w e n f o rc e m e n t f

o r f a ilu re to p a yth e ird e b ts . A .R . 1 0 . A ndr ey ev has been l i vi ng and w or ki ng i n the U ni t ed St at es forovert en y ear s , and cont ends thati f he i s r emoved t o the U kr ai ne he w i l l be homel es s beca us e he ha s no m o n e y , n o jo b , a n d n o f a m ily th e re , a f

a te h e c o n s id e rs ta n ta m o u n t to s u ic id e . A ndr ey ev’ s ci r cumst ance s , al though r egr ett abl e, do notcons t i tut e a ba s i s foras y l um or w i thhol di ng of r emoval , w hi ch r equi r e a s how i ng of per s ecut i on on acc ountof m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. See M att erof A cos t a, 19 I . & N . D ec 211, 233- 34 ( B I A 1985) ; Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . Pover tyand h o m e les sn e ss , w h ile “ a p p e a lin g to sy m p a th ya n d c o m p a ss io n ,” a re “ f a r to o v a g u e a n d a llA tthe hea r i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge, A ndr ey ev r efe rr ed t o hi s compani on as 2 hi s comm on l aw w i fe. A . R . 64. A ndr ey ev di d notar gue t o the B I A thathe had s at i s fi ed anys t at e’ s l egal r equi r ement s fores t abl i s hi ng a comm on l aw m arr i age, how ever . See 6 encompas s i ng t o be cha r act er i s t i cs thats etthe per i m et er s fora pr ot ect ed gr oup w i thi n the s cope of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct . ” Escoba rv. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 363, 368 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; s ee a l s o L ukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 172 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he B IA reas on ablycon cl ud ed from the ev i den t i aryrecor d thatA nd rey ev fa i l ed to est abli sh m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, and w as ther efor e i nel i gi bl e foras y l um . See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( 42) ( A ) ; L ukw ago, 329 F. 3d at170 ( deny i ng as y l um w her e al i en coul d not d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e w a s ta rg e te d b e c a u s e o f 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 ). L i kew i s e, A ndr ey ev’ s ant i ci pat ed povertyi s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyfor w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 208. 18( a) ( 1) ; s ee a l s o Pi err e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 528 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) ( hol di ng thats uffe r i ng attr i but abl e t o the “unf or tunat e butuni nt ended c ons equenc es of the p oo r condit i on s” i n the cou ntryof rem ov al i s not “t orture” un der C A T ). T he B IA al so corr ect l yfound thatA ndr ey ev fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thathe had a qual i fy i ng U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen orl aw ful perm anentr es i dentr el at i ve t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . See 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) . A ndr ey ev’ s compani on pos s es s es a gr een c ar d, buthe i s notl egal l ym arr i ed t o her . T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval thr ough a s pous e, the mar r i age mustbe l egal l yval i d. See So C hun C hung v. I N S, 602 F. 2d 608, 610 ( 3d C i r . 1979) . T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d t o s ugges tthatA ndr ey ev has anyother 2B ej arv. A s hcr oft , 324 F. 3d 127, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thatthe cons equenc es of

n o n e x h a u s tio n a re ju ri s d ic tio n a l) . 7 qu al i fy i ng rel at i ves. A l tho ug h w e app reci at e A nd rey ev’s s trong d esi re t o rem ai n in the U nit ed S t at es, th e B IA c o m m itt e d n o leg a l er ro r in re a c h in g its c o n c lu sio n th a t A n d re y e v is n o t elig ib le fo r i m m igrati o n reli ef. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l gran t th e G o v ern m en t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary a c t i on a nd de nyA nd r e y e v’ s pe t i t i on fo rr e vi e w . Se e Thi r d Ci r c ui tLA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. T her e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l . See N ken v. H ol der , ____ U . S. ____,

____ , 1 2 9 S .C t. 1 7 4 9 , 1 7 6 1 (2 0 0 9 ).