A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

M O SANJ I B S I KDER, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v . A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S, A t t orney G e n e ra l, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1255 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 1 8 3 3 - WY D - MJ W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , BROR BY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P eti ti o n er M o S anji b S ikd er, ap p ea ri n g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s habea s pet i t i on, w hi ch cha l l enged a B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) deci s i on deny i ng hi s r eques t s foras y l um and r es tr i ct i on on r emoval . B oth part i es have r eques t ed thatw e cons true M r . Si kder ’ s habea s pet i t i on as a pet i t i on forr evi ew under8 U . S. C . § 1252. I n the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce,O n Sept ember8, 2005, tw o day s aft ert he B I A i s s ued i t s fi nal or derof 1 r emoval , M r . Si kderfi l ed numer ous document s i n the di s tr i ctcourtchal l engi ng the B I A ’ s or der . T he courtcons trued M r . Si kder ’ s fi l i ngs as a habe as pet i t i on and or der ed hi m t o s ubm i tan appl i cat i on under28 U . S. C . § 2241, w hi ch he di d on S ep tem b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , sti ll w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f th e B IA ’s ord er. T h e d istri ct co u rt u l t i ma t e l yd i s mi s s e d th e h a b e a s p e t i t i o n fo rl a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e rt h e RE AL ID A ct, co n clud ing that this co u rth as e x clus ive ju ri sd ict ion to h ea r M r. S ikd er’s c h a lle n g e to h is fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 5) . Si nce M r. S ik d e r filed w h a t w a s p lain lya c h a llen g e to th e B IA ’s r e m o v a l o rd e r w ith in th e 3 0 -d a yd e a d lin e m a n d a ted b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(1 ), w e m a yc o n sid e r h is p l e a d i n g s a s a p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w t r a n s fe rr e d t o t h i s c o u r tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 3 1 . See B errum -G arci a v. C om f ort , 390 F. 3d 1158, 1163 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( tr ans ferr i ng a w r ongl y - fi l ed habe as pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 1631 and t aki ng ju risd ictio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ); D u ra n -He rn a n d ez v . A sh c ro ft , 348 F. 3d 1158, 1162 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( tr eat i ng w r ongl y - fi l ed habe as pet i t i on as a pet i t i on fo r rev iew an d ex erc isi n g juri sd ict ion u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ). -2- we g r a n tth a tr e q u e s ta n d we i n v o k e th e g e n e r a l tr a n s fe rs t a tu t e , 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 3 1 , t o c o n s i d e r th e p e t i t i o n a s p r o p e r l y fi l e d i n th i s c o u r t . No n e th e l e s s , we 1 c o n c l u d e t h a tM r . S i k d e r ’ s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e BI A’ s d e c i s i o n l a c k me r i ta n d we ther efor e exe r ci s e ourj ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252 t o denyt he pet i t i on for re v ie w . I. M r . Si kder , a B angl ades hi nat i onal , came t o the U ni t ed St at es on a s tudent vi s a i n 1991 w i th author i zat i on t o s t ayunt i l D ece m ber31, 1999. H e over s t ay ed h is v isa a n d re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s w e re in iti a ted a g a in st h im in 2 0 0 4 . H e filed h is as y l um appl i cat i on on February23, 2005, cl ai m i ng thathe w i l l s uffe rpol i t i cal per s ecut i on i f he i s for ced t o r eturn t o B angl ades h. M or e s peci fi cal l y , as M r. S ikd er e x p lai n ed b o th in h is ap p li ca ti o n an d at his h ea ri n g , h e fea rs-3-

persecut i on becau se he i s the son of S i raj S i kd er, w ho w as a prom i nen tl eft i st p o li ti ca l l ea d er o f th e 1 9 7 0 ’s. A fter fo u n d ing the P u rba B an g la S arb ah ara pol i t i cal party , w hi ch cl ai m ed t o champi on the r i ght s of B angl ades h’ s for s aken u n d e rc la s s , S ir aj S ik d e r w a s k ille d w h ile in g o v e rn m e n t c u s to d yin 1 9 7 5 . M r . Si kdercont ends thatm ember s of the A w ami L eague pol i t i cal party , w hi ch w a s th e n in p o w e r, w ill fin d h im a n d h a rm h im o u t o f re sid u a l il l w ill to w a rd s h is father . I n fi l i ngs bot h i n the di s tr i ctcourtand her e, he has s t at ed thats endi ng hi m back t o B angl ades h w oul d be compar abl e t o s endi ng the s on of A dol f H i t l er to Isr a e l. T he I J found M r . Si kdert o be a c r edi bl e w i tnes s , butnonethel es s r ej ect ed h is c laim s. F irst, h e c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. S ik d e r’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n w a s u n tim e ly beca us e i tw as notfi l ed w i thi n a y earof hi s 1991 arr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es , as re q u ire d u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(B ). A n d h e c o n c lu d e d th a t S ik d e r fa iled to d e m o n s tr a te c h a n g e d o r e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s to ju s tif yth e d e la y . W i th r es pectt o r es tr i ct i on on r emoval , the I J found thatM r . Si kderfai l ed t o s how thathe fa ced a cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on ort or tur e s o as t o qual i fy forthatform of r el i ef. T he I J w as notper s uaded thathe fa ced a nydangerby virtue o f his fat her’ s poli t i cal act i vit i es, becau se he ha d rem ai ned i n B ang l adesh unharm ed for15 y ear s aft erhi s father ’ s death. T he I J poi nt ed outthatM r . Si kder w a s n o t in h id in g d u rin g th a t ti m e , b u t atte n d e d a b o a rd in g sc h o o l w h e re h is father ’ s al l eged e nemi es coul d eas i l yhave found hi m . O therfac t or s contr i but i ngB eca us e the B I A agr eed w i th the I J ’ s concl us i ons , butpr ovi ded no 2 “dis cerni ble s ub st anti ve d i scussi on ” of it s ow n, w e m aycon sul tt he IJ’ s anal y si s, w hi ch i s “al l thatcan gi ve s ubs t ance t o the B I A ’ s r eas oni ng i n i t s or derof aff i r m ance . ” Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). -4- to th e IJ’ s d e c isio n in c lu d e d th e fa c t th a t n e ith e r M r. S ik d e r n o r a n yo f h is s i bl i ngs w er e det ai ned orarr es t ed i n B angl ades h and thatM r . Si kderhad l eftthe countryon a val i d pas s por t . Forthe s ame r eas ons , the I J found thatM r . Si kder w oul d notl i kel ybe t or tur ed bythe B angl ades hi governm ent . I n s hor t , he concl uded that“ther e i s nothi ng t o s ugges tthatthe governm entw oul d have a ny i nt er es ti n [M r . Si kder ] w hat s oever . ” A dm i n. R . at544. M r. S ik d e r a p p e a led th e IJ’ s d e c isio n to th e B IA , b u t th e B IA a g re e d w ith the I J thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as i nexcus abl yfi l ed bey ond the one- y ear deadl i ne. I tal s o agr eed w i th the I J ’ s concl us i on thatM r . Si kderdi d notfac e a m o re lik e lyth a n n o t ch a n c e o f b e in g p e rse c u ted o r to rtu re d u p o n h is re tu rn to Ba n g l a d e s h a n d th e r e fo r e h e d i d n o tq u a l i f yfo rr e s tr i c t i o n o n r e mo v a l . On S e p t e mb e r 6 , 2 0 0 5 , th e BI A i s s u e d a b r i e f o r d e r a ffi r mi n g t h e I J , wh i c h , a s we 2 e x p la in e d a b o v e , M r. S ik d e r t im e ly ap p e a le d , a lb e it in th e w ro n g c o u rt . II. B efor e turni ng t o t he mer i t s of M r . Si kder ’ s appea l , w e not e thatm os tof hi s copi ous fi l i ngs ar e exc eedi ngl ydi ffi cul tt o fol l ow . I n addi t i on t o hi s openi ng br i ef, he has s ubm i t t ed var i ous pr ol i x document s advanc i ng r ambl i ng, dupl i cat i ve a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f h is p e tit io n fo r re v iew . A n d a ll o f h is fili n g s re fe r to-5-

ex h ibit s an d ap p en d ices w ith n o ap p are n t r elati o n sh ip to the rec o rd o n ap p ea l or admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. N onethel es s , s i nce he i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, w e ar e obl i ged to c o n s tru e h is filin g s lib e ra lly. C um m i ngs v. E vans , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). H a v in g d o n e s o , w e d is c e rn tw o m a in a rg u m e n ts in h is p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . F irst, h e c h a llen g e s th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f th e o n e -y e a r d e a d lin e se t fo rth in 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) . H e does notappea rt o t ake i s s ue w i th the fa ctual det erm i nat i on as t o w hen hi s appl i cat i on w as fi l ed. N ordoes he ar gue that ch an g ed o r ex tr ao rdin arycircu m stan ce s sh o u ld ex cu se h is de lay . R athe r, M r . Si kdercont ends thatthe one- y eardeadl i ne vi ol at es hi s equal pr ot ect i on and du e process r i gh t s as w el l as the S up rem acyC l ause. H i s second argum ent i s a m o re g e n e ra l o bjec tio n to th e IJ’ s fin d in g s, w h ich w e in terp re t as a c h a llen g e to th e e v id e n tiary ba sis fo r th e d e n ial o f h is re q u e st fo r re stric tio n o n re m o v a l. A . A s y l um W e l ack ge ner al j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a det erm i nat i on r el at i ng t o the tim e lin e ss o f

a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ); D i al l o v. G onz al es , 4 4 7 F . 3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 8 1 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . Un d e rth e RE AL I D Ac t , h o we v e r , we m ayr evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on for r e v i e w n o twi th s t a n d i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a ro f § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); D ia llo , 4 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 . S til l, as w e w e re c a re f u l to n o te in D ia llo , “cha l l enges di r ect ed s ol el yatthe age ncy ’ s di s cr et i onaryand fa ctual-6-

det erm i nat i ons r emai n out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Id. W e the refo re h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e d e n ial o f M r. S ik d e r’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n o n ly i ns ofaras det erm i ni ng w hetherthe B I A ’ s appl i cat i on of the one- y eardeadl i ne viol at ed h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. I. E qualP r ot ect i on Sect i on 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) of Ti t l e 8 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode pr ovi des thatan al i en maynotappl yforas y l um “unl es s the al i en demonstr at es bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i cat i on has been f i l ed w i thi n 1 y earaft erthe d a te o f th e a lien ’s a rriv a l in th e U n ited S tate s.” M r. S ik d e r a rg u e s th is s tatu te vi ol at es the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e bec aus e i tdr aw s an arbi tr arydi s t i nct i on b e tw e e n s im ila rl y -s itu a te d a s y lu m a p p lic a n ts . W e d is a g re e . “W hen C on gress exerci ses [i t s] po w ers t o legi sl at e w i th regard t o ali ens, the pr opers t andar d of j udi ci al r evi ew i s r at i onal - bas i s r evi ew . ” Sos ki n v. R ei ner ts on , 3 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (u p h o ld in g C o lo ra d o m e d ica id l aw thatdi s t i ngui s hes betw een s ubcl as s es of al i ens and expl ai ni ng that “di s cr i m i nat i on among subcl as s i fi cat i ons of al i ens i s notbas ed on a s us pect cl as s i fi cat i on ( s uch as al i enage ) . ”) . T hus , C ongr es s ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e a o n e-y ea r de ad li n e o n asy lum see k ers a b sen t cha n g ed o r ex tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s m u st b e u p h e ld if it w a s ra tio n a llyre late d to a leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n t p u rp o se . M r. S ik d e r h a s “ th e b u rd e n to n e g a te e v e ryc o n c e iv a b le bas i s w hi ch mi ghts uppor ta l egi s l at i ve cl as s i fi cat i on w hetherornotthe bas i s has-7-

a founda t i on i n the r ecor d. ” He rn a n d ez-Mezq u ita v . A sh c ro ft , 293 F. 3d 1161, 1 1 6 4 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o tat ion an d alt era ti o n o m itted). I ti s uncl earfr om M r . Si kder ’ s br i ef w hyhe thi nks the one- y eardeadl i ne fo r a sy lu m se e k e rs is irra tio n a l. B u t itse e m s to u s th a t § 1 1 5 8 (a )(2 )(B ) is ra tio n a llyre late d to a t lea st o n e leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n t p u rp o se , tha t is “i dent i fy i ng thos e al i ens w ho i m m edi at el yi ndi cat e[] a des i r e t o s t ayi n the U ni t ed St at es beca us e of a genui ne thr eatof per s ecut i on. ” Id. at1165 ( r ej ect i ng equal pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o fi l i ng deadl i ne of N i car aguan A dj us t m entand C entr al A m er i can Rel i ef A ct ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe one- y eardeadl i ne s et for th i n § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) has a r at i onal bas i s and w e r ej ectM r . Si kder ’ s equal p ro tec tio n a rg u m e n t. i i . D ue P rocess M r . Si kder ’ s due pr oces s ar gum ent , w hi ch appe ar s t o be thatthe one- y ear d e a d lin e is a rb itrar ya n d u n re a so n a b le, lik e w ise lac k s m e rit. “ T h e F if th A m endmentent i t l es al i ens t o due pr oces s of l aw i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . ” D ia llo , 44 7 F . 3d at12 80 . T he S up rem e C ou rthas held, ho w ever, that due p rocess i s notvi ol at ed w hen C ongr es s i m pos es a r eas onabl e l i m i t at i ons per i od on t he filin g o f n a tu ra liz a tio n p e titio n s . I NS v. P angi l i nan , 4 8 6 U .S . 8 7 5 , 8 8 5 (1 9 8 8 ). A tl eas tone of ours i s t erci r cui t s has ext ended the C our t ’ s hol di ng i n P angi l i nan to the o n e-y ea r de ad li n e o f § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(B ).I n 1968, the U ni t ed St at es acc eded t o the 1967 U ni t ed N at i ons Pr ot ocol 3 R el at i ng t o t he St atus of R efuge es , t her ebyagr eei ng t o be bound byt he s u b s ta n tiv e p ro v is io n s o f A rt ic le s 2 th ro u g h 3 4 o f th e 1 9 5 1 C o n v e n tio n . I NS v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 9 (1 9 8 7 ). -8- T he one- y earper i od of l i m i t at i ons forfi l i ng an as y l um appl i cat i on under8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) , w hi ch i s t emper ed bythe t ol l i ng pr ovi s i ons of § 1158( a) ( 2) ( D ) , pr ovi des an as y l um appl i cant an opportuni tyt o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner . T he one- y earper i od i s notan unr eas onabl e r equi r ementfor tr i gger i ng the r i ghtt o an adj udi cat i on, and, thus , an al i en i s not depr i ved of due pr oces s w hen hi s orheras y l um cl ai m i s deni ed for fa ilu re to c o m p lyw ith th e re q u ire m e n t. Sukw anputr a v. G onz al es , 434 F. 3d 627, 632 ( 3r d C i r . 2006) . W e agr ee a nd ther efor e r ej ectM r . Si kder ’ s chal l enge unde rthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. i i i . Suprem acy C lau se M r . Si kder ’ s r emai ni ng cons t i tut i onal ar gum entappea r s t o be thatthe o n e -y e a r d e a d lin e v io late s th e S u p re m a c yC lau se b e c a u se it co n flicts w ith A rticle 33 of the 1951 U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on on the St atus of R efuge es . A r t i cl e 33 3 pr ovi des t hat“[n] o C ontr act i ng St at e s hal l expel orr eturn ( “r efoul er ”) a r efuge e i n anym annerw hat s oevert o t he fr ont i er s ort err i t or i es w her e hi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof hi s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p of a part i cul ars oci al gr oup orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” I NS v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 48 0 U. S. 421, 440 ( 1987) ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . I n or dert o qual i fyforpr ot ect i on under A rt i cl e 33 , an ap pli cant m ustshow (1) t hat he i s a r efug ee, i . e. , he h as a w el l - founded fearof per s ecut i on; and ( 2) t hathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be th re a te n e d if

d e p o rt e d . Id. at440- 41. B eca us e, as expl ai ned bel ow , M r . Si kder-9-

fai l ed t o m ake e i therof thes e s how i ngs , he does notqual i fyforpr ot ect i on under A rt i cl e 33 . Iti s therefore un necessaryfor us t o ad dress his S up rem acyC l ause c h a lle n g e to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( B ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. C us um ano , 83 F. 3d 1247, 1250- 51 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( expl ai ni ng thatw e do notaddr es s cons t i tut i onal q u esti o n s u n less ab so lutelyn ec essa ry ). B . R es tr i ct i on on R emoval R es tr i ct i on on r emoval pr ohi bi t s the r emoval of “a n al i en t o a countryi f the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l d e c id e s th a t th e a lien ’s life o r f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a ten e d in thatcountr ybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a p arti cu lar soc ial g rou p , o r po li ti ca l op inion . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ). “In order t o d em on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor [res tri ct i on on rem ov al ], the ap pli cant m ust es t abl i s h a cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on thr ough pr es ent at i on of evi dence e sta b lish in g th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t th e a p p lica n t w o u ld b e su bjec t to per s ecut i on. ” Wo ld e me s ke lv . I NS , 257 F. 3d 1185, 1193 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . O nce the B I A m akes a det erm i nat i on as t o an a p p lica n t’s e lig ib ili ty , w e m a yn o t re v e rse it u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s u p p o rt s , b u t c o m p e ls a d iffe re n t c o n c lu s io n . I NS v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 50 2 U. S. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n .1 (1 9 9 2 ). I n re v ie w in g th e B IA ’s d e c is io n , [w ] e cons i deranyl egal ques t i ons de novo, and w e r evi ew the a g e n c y ’s fin d in g s o f

fa c t u n d e r t h e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . U nderthatt es t , ourdutyi s t o guar ant ee thatfac tual det erm i nat i ons ar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence cons i der i ng t he r ecor d as a w hol e.-10-

E lzo u r v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 7 8 F . 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 5 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA rejec ted M r. S ik d e r’s re q u e st fo r re stric tio n o n re m o v a l b e c a u se it concl uded thathe fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h that“he mor e l i kel ythan notw oul d be per s ecut ed on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, ort or tur ed . . . i f he w er e r eturned to B a n g lad e sh .” A d m in . R . at 2 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts thi s det erm i nat i on. T he evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs thatM r . Si kder r emai ned i n B angl ades h unm ol es t ed for15 y ear s aft erhi s fatherdi ed and w as al l ow ed t o l eave on a val i d pas s por t . M or eover , al though the A w ami L eague rul ed B angl ades h fr om 1996 t o 2001, ther e i s no evi dence of a w arr antbei ng issue d fo r M r. S ikd er’s arrest d u ri n g that ti m e o r an yind icati o n that S ir aj S ikd er’s otherchi l dr en w er e t ar get ed forper s ecut i on. T her e i s onl yone documenti n the re c o rd th a t ev e n m e n tio n s th e p o ss ib ili tyo f S iraj S ik d e r’s c h ild re n b e in g in danger . I ti s an emai l fr om A nne Sal i nas , Seni orPr ogr am O ffi cerforthe C ent er of C i vi l Soci etyand G overnance i n W as hi ngt on, D . C . , t o Sar ah Sohn, Seni or L e g a l F e llo w o f

Im m ig ra tio n E q u a lity , als o b a se d in W a sh in g to n . T h e e m a il, w h ich is d a ted M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , res p o n d s to M s. S o h n ’s in q u iryin to c o n d iti o n s in B angl ades h forknow n r el at i ves of Si r aj Si kder . M s . Sal i nas , forw ar di ng in fo rm a tio n f

ro m “ lo c a l sta ff” re sp o n d s: T he i s s ue i s s ens i t i ve att he mom ent . M aoi s tpartyof Si r aj Si kdar [s i c] i s banned byB angl ades h. T heyar e undercons t antw at ch of R A B and otherL E A . T heym aybe ac t i ve i n under gr ound. H e mi ght be fa ci ng a pr obl em i f he i s back i n B angl ades h know n as Si r aj S ik d e r’s so n . In fo rm a tio n so u rc e is d ifficu lt t o su g g e st.-11-

Id. at 52 3 . E v en if th e ind ividu al w h o se o p inion is ex p resse d in this em ail w ere c o n fi d e n tth a tM r . S i k d e rwo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d u p o n h i s r e tu rn t o Ba n g l a d e s h , we coul d notoverturn the B I A ’ s deci s i on bas ed on the opi ni on of a s i ngl e s t aff m emberof the C ent erof C i vi l Soci etyand G overnance . D es pi t e thi s emai l , the re c o rd a s a w h o le c o n ta in s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . O urconcl us i on appl i es equal l yw i th r es pectt o M r . Si kder ’ s r eques tforr es tr i ct i on on r emoval underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctand underthe r egul at i ons i m plem enti ng t he U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainstT orture. S i nce w e al so rej ecthis con st i tuti on al chall eng e t o the den i al of h i s asy l um app l i cat i on , w e m ust a ffir m th e B IA ’s fin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l. T h e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w is D E N IE D . A l l pendi ng m ot i ons ar e D E N I E D as m oot , w i th the exc ept i on of M r . Si kder ’ s J ul y27, 2006, M ot i on T o C onver tT he H abea s C orpus I nt o A P e tit io n F o r R e v iew ; A n d If P o ss ib le T o S p litIn to T w o C a se s, w h ich is g ra n ted in partand deni ed i n part . T hatpartof the mot i on as ki ng us t o cons true M r . Si kder ’ s habea s pet i t i on as a pet i t i on forr evi ew i s G R A N T E D . I n al l other r e s p e c t s th e mo t i o n i s DE NI E D.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge