2007 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 7-18-2007 

# D eAlmeid a 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 . 05-3453

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_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 ept e d for inclusion in 2007 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
" D eAlmeid a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 745. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/745NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 3453 AB RA O DE AL M E I DA,

P e titio n e r, v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t. Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce B I A Fi l e N o. A 25- 307- 918 S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o L A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

J une 14, 2007 B E FO R E M cK E E , ST A PL E T O N , and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y18, 2007)

___________________ OP I NI ON

___________________ M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge, A br ao D eA l m ei da pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on2

A ppeal s r ever s i ng t he I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s gr antof r el i ef unde rt he U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . For r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l denyt he p e titio n . I. Si nce w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e nee d notr ei t er at e the fa ctual or pr ocedur al hi s t or yof t hi s appea l exce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourbr i ef di s cus s i on. A br ao D eA l m ei da w as bor n i n a B ot s w ana r efuge e ca m p. H i s par ent s had t aken
re f u g e th e re a f

ter c iv il w a r f

o rc e d th e m to f

lee th e ir n a tiv e A n g o la. D e A lm e id a ’s f a m ily eventual l yr el ocat ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es and D eA l m ei da bec ame a l aw ful per m anent re sid e n t. H o w e v e r, h is re sid e n c yh e re w a s n o t w ith o u t d if f icu lti e s a s h e w a s s u b se q u e n tly convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of her oi n w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . R el y i ng upon t hatconvi ct i on, t he G o v e rn m e n t in itia te d re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) as hi s convi ct i on cons t i tut ed an “ aggr avat ed fe l ony ” underi m m i gr at i on l a w. A t th e e n su ing im m igrati o n h ea ri n g , the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e d en ied D eA lm eida ’s
re q u e st f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, bu t g ra n ted re lief u n d e r th e C A T . T h e IJ b a se d h is d e c isio n p rim a rilyo n th e w id e sp re a d to rtu re a n d h u m a n rig h ts v io latio n s s til l o c c u rrin g in A ngol a. T he I J found t hatarbi t r aryarr es tand det ent i on ar e comm on i n A ngol a, and that det ai nees and pr i s oner s ar e s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e. T hatfi ndi ng, combi ned w i t h t he fa ct t hatD eA l m ei da had ne verl i ved i n A ngol a, caus ed the I J t o concl ude thatD eA l m ei daWe h avejurisdic tio n p ur su ant t o 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( a)( 2) (d) b e c a us eDe Alme ida

a ssert s a 1 d u ep r o c e s s c laim , an d

a ls o argu e s th at t

h eB IAc o mm itte d

le g a l er r o r in a p p ly in gth eCA T . We exercise de novo revie w over the B IA’s leg al deter

minations, but afford Chevron deferenc e to the BIA’s re asonableinterpre tation of the statutes the B IA is charg ed with administering . Francois v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 645, 648 ( 3d Cir. 2006). De Alme ida

argue s: “ theB oa

rd faile d to prov idedu eproc e ss in th ea dju dic atio n o f h is 2 claims arisingunder theConvention Ag ainst Torture. . . . theBoa rd failed to refutethe 3 wo u l d b e d e t a i n e d a n d t o r tu r e d i f h e r e tu r n e d , a n d t h a th e wa s t h e r e f o r e e l i g i b l e f

o rCA T
r el i ef. T he B IA sust ai ned t he G ov ernm ent’ s appea l becau se the B oard fo un d thatt he IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t D e A lm e id a w o u ld lik e lyf a c e d e ten tio n a n d to rtu re u p o n re tu rn to A n g o la
w as “s pecul at i ve” a nd “unconvi nci ng. ” The B I A concl uded thatt he evi dence di d not
sa tisf yD e A lm e id a ’s b u rd e n u n d e r th e C A T a n d o rd e re d h im re m o v e d to A n g o la. T h is pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. 1 II. T he G overnm entar gues t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overD eA l m ei da’ s pet i t i on for
r evi ew beca us e the onl ycl ai m t hathas notbeen w ai ved i s not hi ng m or e than a c hal l enge to th e s u f

f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e . See R es pondent ’ s B r . at4. W e agr ee thatD eA l m ei da di d notpr es er ve hi s cl ai m t hathe i s nota ci t i zen of A ngol a, ort he cl ai m t hathe ca nnotbe
r emoved unl es s hi s r efuge e s t atus i s fi r s tr evoked. A l t hough t he G overnm entbel i eves t hatD eA l m ei da‘ s r emai ni ng cl ai m r ai s es onl ya fa ctual di s put e, D eA l m ei da i s ar gui ng t hatt he B oar d’ s t r eatm entof t he I J ’ s deci s i on deni ed hi m due pr oces s of l aw , and thatt he Boa r d e r r e d i n a p p l y i n g t h e CA T. See Cham v. A t t ’ y G en . , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 6 8 3 , 6 9 1 (3d C ir . 2Pe tition e r’ s e vid e nc e , b ut m e re ly state d, in b oil e rp latefo rm , th at th ePe tition e r f a ile d to me e t hi s burden of proof. TheBoa

rd did not specify

what about the a

vailable e videncecontra dicted the Petitioner’s claim. The B oard’ s decision was also errone ous beca use it found no er

ror in the fac tual deter

minations made by

the immigration judge but merely asser ted that the judg e’s leg al conclusions were ‘spe culative’ and unsupported by the evidenc e. TheBoa

rd did not specify

why it made that deter

mination.” Petitioner’s Br . at 24. 4 2 0 0 6 ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h o s e c la im s . A lie n s in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a re e n title d to d u e p ro c e s s . See S e wa k v . I NS , 900 F . 2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). D u e p roc ess g u ara n tees “ fa ctfind ing b ase d o n a re co rd pr oduced be for e the dec i s i onm akerand di s cl os ed t o [the al i en] , ” the r i ghtt o m ake “ar gum ent s on [t he al i en’ s ] ow n behal f, ” and “ t he r i ghtt o an i ndi vi dual i zed de t er m i nat i on of [the al i en’ s ] i nt er es t s . ” Kam ara v. A t t y. G en. , 420 F. 3d 202, 212 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , “the ques t i on of due pr oces s i s not
w hethert he B I A r eac hed the corr ectdeci s i on; r atheri ti s s i m pl yw hethert he B oar d m ade
a n in d iv id u a liz e d d e te rm in a tio n o f [ th e a lie n ’s ]” c la im . Id . S e e a lso A w o les i v. A sh c ro ft , 3 4 1 F .3 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 2 n .7 (3 d c ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e B IA fo u n d that the u n d ispu ted f ac ts i n the re co rd d id n o t sat isfythe s tand ard forC A T r el i ef, and thatt he I J ’ s contr aryconcl us i on w as nots uppor t ed byobj ect i ve evi dence . D es pi t e D eA l m ei da’ s conce r n w i t h t he br evi t yof the B oar d’ s deci s i on, t he B oar d’ s fac tual concl us i ons , and the B oar d’ s r ej ect i on of the I J ’ s concl us i ons , i ti s cl ear t hatt he B oar d aff

or ded D eA l m ei da an “ i ndi vi dual i zed de t er m i nat i on” of hi s cl ai m for
r el i ef unde rt he C A T . A ccor di ngl y , t her e i s no due pr oces s vi ol at i on. T he B I A found t hat the re co rd d id n o t sat isfythe leg al st an d ard fo r C A T reli ef , an d that the IJ’s c o n tr aryThe Asse ssment cites two documents for this propositi on, the “B akong o Brief - January 3 1998" a nd a docume nt from the UN I ntegrate d Reg ional Information Ne twork entitled “U NI TA General See k Asylum, 10/06/00,” neither of whic h is part of the administrative record. 5 c o n c lu s io n w a s b a s e d o n s p e c u la tio n th a t w a s n o t s u p p o rt e d b yo b je c tiv e e v id e n c e . W e fi nd no l egal err ori n t he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatt he I J ’ s gr antof C A T r el i ef
w a s b a s e d o n s p e c u la tiv e le g a l c o n c lu s io n s th a t a re u n s u p p o rt e d b yo b je c tiv e e v id e n c e . I ndeed, t he I J m ade a n as s um pt i on t hatr es t s on not hi ng m or e than gene r al evi dence of A n g o la’ s p o o r h u m a n rig h ts re c o rd a n d a rb itrar ya rre sts a n d d e ten tio n s. B a se d u p o n th a t, t he I J concl uded thatA ngol an author i t i es w i l l l i kel ydet ai n D eA l m ei da fors om e ext ended per i od of t i m e on ac countof hi s s t atus as a cr i m i nal depor t ee w ho has neverbefor e l i ved i n t he countr y . T he I J m ade thi s fi ndi ng des pi t e conc edi ng t hatt her e i s “no di r ect evi dence conce r ni ng t he A ngol an governm ent ’ s pol i ci es orpr act i ces ” r egar di ng t he d e te n tio n o f

c ri m in a l d e p o rt e e s in th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . A p p . a t 4 6 . O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of t he r ecor d di d uncovera s i ngl e document , ent i t l ed “A ngol a A s s es s m ent , ” pr epar ed bya U ni t ed K i ngdom i m m i gr at i on agenc yi n A pr i l 2002,
w hi ch has atl eas tm ar gi nal r el evanc e t o t hi s as pectof D eA l m ei da’ s cl ai m . T hat
as s es s m entpr ovi des i n per t i nentpar t : “A nyA ngol ans w ho have be en deport ed fr om abr oad, orw ho l i ved abr oad form anyy ear s , w oul d be ques t i oned byi m m i gr at i on and pol i ce a tt he ai rpor tw i t h a vi ew t o es t abl i s hi ng t hei ri dent i t yand w hethert heyw er e of i nt er es tt o t he author i t i es forpol i t i cal orcr i m i nal r eas ons . T he fa ctof appl y i ng for
a sy lu m w o u ld n o t, i f

d isc o v e re d , b e o f

p a rticu lar in ter e st.” A p p . at 2 8 7 . H o w e v e r, th is 3DeAlmeida did testify

that he knew

one Ang olan who had be en depor ted for a criminal 4 c onvic tio n o ve r t e n ye ars a g o, and that r ebe ls a sso c iate d w ithUN I TAtrie d to tor turehim beca use they considere d him to be a traitor. App. at 113-15; 121. But there wa s no sugg estion that this deportee w as targ eted by UNI TA rebels bec ause of his status as a criminal deportee . The IJreje cted DeAlmeida’s c laims for re lief that we re ba sed on his fea r of tortureby

UNI TA rebe ls in view of the cha

ng ed political climate in Ang ola. As noted ea

rlier, DeAlmeida has not pre serve d his argument that he is not an Ang olan 5 citizen. W e note, however, that the Gover nment argues without contradic tion that DeAlmeida conce ded Ang olan citizenship in the brie f he submitted to the IJ , his argument before the IJ , and in his Asylum Application. See Respondent’s B r. at 7 n.3. 6 o n ly es ta b lis h e s th a t D e A lm e id a w ill b e q u e s tio n e d b yA n g o la n o f f ic ia ls u p o n h is a rr iv a l. It d o e s n o t e s ta b lis h a lik e lih o o d th a t h e w ill b e im p ri s o n e d o r t o rt u re d . M or eover , al t hough D eA l m ei da or i gi nal l ys t at ed i n hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef that he fe ared detent i on and t orture byA ng olan aut ho ri t i es on ac cou nt of hi s st atus as a c rim in a l d e p o rte e , A p p . at 3 9 0 , h e tes tifie d a t th e h e a rin g th a t h e o n lyf e a re d re m o v a l to A n g o la be ca u se h e h ad n ev er li v ed there b ef o re a n d b ec au se o f h is fathe r’s m il it ary b a c k g ro u n d , A p p . at 1 2 4 , n o t b e c a u se o f a n yf e a r o f d e ten tio n o r to rtu re b a se d o n h is
s t atus of cr i m i nal depor t ee. I n anyevent , t he l ack of obj ect i ve evi dence of det ent i on of 4
c r i mi n a l d e p o r t e e s i s f

a t a l t o De Al me i d a ’ s CAT c l a i m. 5

III For t he r eas ons s t at ed above , t he pet i t i on i s deni ed.