## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 2288 A DNAN I. I S S AQ, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review from an O rde r o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A075 056 464

A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 17, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. In 199 7, A dn an I ssa q, a ci ti zen ofI ra q, m ove d w i th hi s p ar ents and thre e s ibl i ngs fro m Sy ri a t o th e U ni ted S tat es, wh er e they were adm i tte d as r efu gee s. I ssa q and his f am i l y a re Chri sti ans o f A ss yr ian d es c en t. H is fa th e r, a n at ive of Iraq, an d h is m o t h er , a Syr ian , w er e m ar rie d in Sy ria bu t s et tle d in Baghdad , I r aq, wher e I ss aqwas b o r n in 1 97 8. F ea r i ng2 N o. 09

- 2288

re l i gi ous per secuti on, I ssa q’s pare nts t oo k the f am i l y t o Sy ria in 19 91

. T h er e th ey re m ain ed th ro u gh lat e 1 99 7, u n til th ei r a ppl i ca ti on fo r r efug ee s ta tu s was a ppr o ve d a nd th ey ca m e t o th e U n ite d Sta te s. O n c e h e r e , t h e fa m ily set tl ed i n Du Page County, I l l i noi s, j ust west of Chi cago . I ssa q beca m e a per m anen t res i dent ofthe U ni ted S tat es i n 200 1. U nfo rtunatel y, I ssa q devel oped a drug habi t, wh i ch l ed to o thercr i m es and ulti m ate l y t o the r em ova l pro c e e d i n g s n o w be f o r e u s . I s s a qw a s c h a r g e d w i th c o mmi t t i n ga n u mb e r o fr e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a r i e s n e a r h i s h o me inlat e 2 00 5. H e p lea d ed gu ilty to o n e c o u n t, an d in M ar ch 200 7 a n I ll i noi s co urt sente nced hi m to 18 0 day s i n pr i so n a nd t wo y ea r s o fprobation, i nc l udi ng i npati ent s ubsta nce- abuse tr eat m ent. In M ay 2007, after I ssa q had ser ved hi s p ri son ter m , the Du Page County J ai l r el ea se d hi m t o a r eh ab i l i ta ti o n pr o g r am ca l l ed th e Treat m ent Alt er na ti ves f orS afe Com m unit i es. I ssa q so on bl ew the chance he had been g i ven. Tw o m onths i nto the pr ogr am , Tre atm ent Alt ern ati ves expel l ed hi m f or us i ngdr ug s a nd f o r a r r an g i ngwi tho th er s to b r i ng drugs into the t re atm ent fac ili ty. I ssa q’s expuls i on vi o l at ed th e te r m s o fhi s pr o ba ti o n, a nd a war r an t iss u ed for h is a rre s t. H e re m ain ed on th e loo se u n til D ec em b er 20 07, w h en a loc al p olic e o ffice r p u l l e d h is caro veraftera tr affic vi ol ati on. I ssa q gav e the o ffi cer hi s br othe r’ s dri ver ’ s l i cen se and at tem pted to fl ee w hen he was a sk ed to f o l l o w the o ffi ce r t o the p oli ce s ta ti o n. This led to new charge s, to wh i ch I ssa q ple aded gui l ty. The cour t s entence d him to fi ve yea rs’ i m pri sonm ent a s the penal ty f orvi ol ating hi s probat i on f orthe re si denti alN o. 09

- 2288 3 bur g l ar y, a nd i t i m po se d a n a ddi ti ona l yea r, t o r un c o nc ur r e nt l y, f o r o b s t r uc t i o n o f j us t i c e i n c o nn e c t i o n w i th th e ne w co nv i ct i o n fo r the t r affi c vi o l at i o n.

I W hen I ssa q’s pro bl em s wit h t h e la w cam e t o the a tten tion of th e D ep artm en t o f H om eland Sec urity (“D H S”), i t ini ti ate d procee dings i n w hi ch i t c harg ed that I ssa q w as re m ova bl e a s a n al i en co nvi cted o fan a ggr avat ed fel ony. 8 U
. S. C. § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i )

. A t an O c tober20 08 he ar i ng b efor e anI m m i g r at i o n J udg e ( “IJ ”) , I ss aqc o nceded that re si denti alburg l ar y, a Clas s 1 fel ony i n I l l i noi s, 72 0 I L C S 5 / 1 9

- 3 ( b ) , i s a n “ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y ” wi th i n t he m ean ing of th e Im m igrati on an d N ationality A ct (“I N A ”), se e 8 U .S.C . §§ 1 10 1(a )(43 )(G ) a n d 12 27 (a)( 2)(A )(iii). A m onth l ate r, I ssa q appli ed f oras yl um , wit h h oldi ng o f rem oval, and reli ef un d er th e C onv en tion A gainst Tortu re ( “CA T”). In hi s a pp l i cati on , I ssa q ass er ted thatbec ause ofhi s i denti ty as an A ssy ri an Chri sti an, h e faced l i fethre ate ni ng per secuti on an d t or ture atthe hand s o f M us l i m e xt r emi st s i fhe wer e r etur ne d t o I r aq . The IJ hel d a hearing on I ssa q’s cas e o n Decem ber17, 2008
. The j ud ge b eg an byco nfi rm i ng tha t I ssa q w as ineli g ib le for asylum becau se his residen tial bu rglary of f en s e wa s a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o ny . Ne xt, the j ud ge f o und tha t I ss aq ’ s cr i m e was “ par ti cul ar l y ser i o us ” ( an othe r ter m of a rt under the I N A ) , and thus he w as b a r r e d fr o m wi thh o l di ng ofr e mov a l b y 8 U. S

. C. § 1 231(b) ( 3) ( B)( i i )

. Thi s l eft j ust o ne questi on: wh ether4 N o. 09

- 2288 I ssa q w as enti tl ed to r el i efi n the f or m o fwithhol din g of r emov alunde r the CAT. Iss aq testi fi ed that he be l i eve d that he would be tor ture d i n I ra q on a ccoun t of his r el i gi on. H i s be l i ef w as base d sol el y o n hi s m em ber shi p i n the gr ou p of A ss yr i a n C h ris tia n s; h e o ffer ed n o re as on w h y h e in part icul arwould be si ngl ed out. Cro ss- exam i nati on revealed that he w as u na w are of th e fact tha t t h ere are ap p ro x im at ely a m illion C h ris tia n s c u rre n tly livin g in I r aq . I ss aq ’ s f athe r, I sh o S ha m o o n, t es ti fi ed that th e entire extended f am i l y has now l eft I ra q. S ham oo n sh ar ed th e o p inio n tha t hi s so n wo ul d b e k i l l ed i fhe wer e r etur ne d. Ra di ca l s, he s ta te d, ha d b eena sk i ng ab ou t t h e f a m ily, an d a for m er n eig hb or w ar n ed h im that “they ” were l oo ki ng f orS ham oo n. Thi s was eno ugh to end an ger the son as w ell, Sham oon th ou gh t. Is s a q ’s m othe r, Lei l a Youk h an a, al so tes ti fi ed. S he m enti oned p re ss u re on C h ris tia n w o m en in Ira qto ad op t M u slim dress , and she too pre dict ed that I ss aq w oul d be k i l l ed i fhe were se nt bac k. T he IJ fo u nd allof th is testim ony cred ibl e bu t insu ffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt r el i efunder the CA T. I raq, t h e j ud ge obs er ved, h as und er gone “vast changes ” s i nce 1 991, wh en I ssa q’s f am i l y l eft th e c ou n tr y. Giv en the num bero f Ch ri sti ans, and eve n Chri sti ans o fA ssy ri an ethnici ty, th e co ur t f o und no ba si s f o r the f ami l y ’ s di r e pr edi ct i o ns ofdeath o r tor tu re . Ind eed, the cour t found no evi dence ap art from thes e op inions abou t the l ikel iho o d o f torture
. H e a cknowle dged the f act that ther e i s s oci al fr i cti on a nd vi ol ence i n Iraq t oday, but that al one w as notN o. 09

- 2288 5

en ou gh to sh ow th at Issa qw ou ld be to rt u re d by a p u b lic offici al, or th at th e govern m en t w ou ld con d one his torture by othe rs . N otabl y, however, the IJ had nothi ng to sa y about an I nter nati onal Rel i gi ous Fr eedom Report that I ssa q had tendere d i n supp or t o fhi s peti ti on on t h e day ofthe he a r ing . S e e htt p: //w w w . sta te. gov/g/drl/r l s/i rf/2 008/ 1 0 8 4 8 3
. h t m (l ast visite d A ug us t 13, 2010 ). Th at R ep ort cata l ogue d seve ra l i nci de n ts i n I ra q ofabuse ag ai nst Assy r i anChr i st i an s. I t al so no te d, unde r the he ading “A b u se s b y R eb el or For eig n For c es o r T e r ro ris t O rg an izati ons” that [ m] a nyi nd i v i du a l s fr o m var i o us r e l i g i o us g r o up s w er e t ar get ed beca use of thei r re l i gi ous i denti ty or se cul arl ea ni ng s. A cts c o m m i tt ed ag ains t th em i ncl ude d no t o nl y ha r as smenta nd i nt i m i dat i o n b ut al so ki dn apping and m urder. The ge ne ra l l aw l ess ne ss tha t perm itt ed cr i m i na l g an g s, t er r o r i st s, a nd insu rgen ts to victim ize citi zen s w ith im p un ity af

fecte d perso ns o fal l ethnici ti es and re ligi ous g ro up s. T h e m ag n itu d e o f se c ta ria n at ta c ks , w h ile d ifficu lt to t r ac k, a ppea r ed to de cl ine dur i ngthe r epo r ting p er iod . W h ile su c h i n c id en ts w er e p ro gr es siv ely few er, S hi ’ a in Sunni

- dom i nated nei ghborhoods, Su n n is in Sh i’ a - d om in at ed n eig hb or h oo d s, an d religi ous m i nor i ti es i n both S u n ni

- and Shi ’ a- dom i nated ne ighborh ood s rep orted rec eiving de ath threat l etters d em an di ngtha t th eyl ea ve the i r ho m es , a nd i n many c a s e s i nd i v i du a l s e i the r c o mpl i e d o r we r e k i l l e d. The IJ co nc l ud ed by denyi ng I ssa q’s r equest f orr el i ef unde r the CAT an d o r der i nghi m r emov ed to I r aq .6 N o. 09

- 2288 The Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “Boar d”) f ound that th e IJ had “ ade qua te l y a nd c o r r ec tly a ddr es se d the i ss ue s pr es en te d. ” I n respon se t o I ss aq ’ s o bj ec ti o n t o the fin d in g t h at h e w as ine ligib le for w ith h old in g of re m ov al, the Boa rd n ot ed that o nce a cr i m e i s dete rm i ned to be parti cularl y s er i ous, ther e i s no need f oran a dd i ti onal fi nd i ng tha t the per son i s a dangerto the com m unity. Eve n i fhe w er e no t i ne l i g ibl e f o r wi thho l di ng, the Board co nti nued , he c oul d not pre vai l o n the m er i ts because the re cor d did not est abl i sh thathi s l i fe o r fre edom would be thr eat ened i n I ra q on the gr ound of his race, re ligion, nation ali ty, m em bersh ip in a pa rt i c ul a r s o c i a l gro up , o r p o l i t i c a l o pi ni o n. S e e 8 U. S

. C. § 1231 ( b) ( 3) ( A )

. N or did I ssa q prove that it w as m o r e l i k ely th an no t th at he woul d be to r tu r ed f or a ny co g ni zabl e r eason ifr emov ed to I r aq . S ee 8 C. F
. R. § 1 208. 16( c)

. Final l y, the Board r ej ecte d w i thout expla nati o n I ss aq ’ s co m p lai nt tha t th e IJ e r r ed byf ai l i ngt o c o nsid er th e In te rn at ion al R elig iou s F re ed om R ep or t in h is a n aly sis . Ov er all, it th ou gh t, h e h ad r e c e ive d a fair hear i n g and an a cceptabl e e xplanat i on. A cti ng thr ough a s in gle m em b er , th e B oa rd th u s d ism iss ed h is a p p ea l.

II I n hi s peti ti on f orr evi ew i n th is c ourt, I ssa q ra i ses tw o ar gum ents: fi rs t, thatthe Board e rr ed w hen i t cha ra cter i zed hi s cr i m e a s “ parti cul ar l y s er i ous” and fo r that re aso n deci ded thathe was ine li gibl e forwithhol ding of re m o v a l, a nd s e c o nd , tha t i t c o mm i t t e d l e g a l e r r o r wh en i t dete rm i ned that he co uld notqual i fy forr el i efunderN o. 09

- 2288 7 th e CA T. Ci ting8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 2( a) (2)( C ), the g o ve r nm en t re sponds that thi s co urt l acks j uri sdic ti on t o adj ud i cate th e pet i ti o n. I t ac k now ledg es tha t we wou l d b e au th

or i zed to r evi ew the Board’ s decis i on i fI ssa q’s peti ti on ra i s e d a c o ns t i t ut i o na l o r o the r qu e s t i o n o f l a w, se e 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ), bu t itas se rt s t h at h is p et itio n fails to do so

.
A W e co ns i derfi r stI ss aq ’ s eff o r t to qua l i fy f o r wi th

hol ding ofr em ova l

. H i s ini ti alpro bl em ar i ses bec ause ofthe pr o v i s i o n o fthe I NA de pr i v i ngthe c o ur t s o fj ur i sdict i on to re vi ew any part of a re m ova l or der base d o n a fi ndi ngtha t th e al i eni s ana g g r av at ed fel o n: N otw ithsta nd ing an y othe r provision of l aw ( statu tory ornonst atuto ry )

. . . and except as provi ded in subparag ra ph (D ) , no cour t s hal l have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew any fi nalo rdero fr em ova l ag ai ns t a n al i en who i s r e mov ab l e b y r e a s o n o fh a v i ngc o mm i t t ed a c rim in al off en se co ve re d in se c tio n . . . 122 7(a )(2) (A )(iii) [w h ich inc lu d es ag gr av at ed f e l o n i es ] .
. . of th is tit le . .

. . § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( C). N otwithstandi ng the superfi c i al l y abso

l u te nature o fthi s l anguage ( apartfro m the excepti on for su b p ar ag ra p h (D )), w e h av e d ec id ed th a t itst ill p erm its us to d ecid e w he th er the p erso n before the cou rt i s th e one who c o m m i tt ed th e cr i m e, a nd whe th erthe cri m e was pro perl y c hara cter i zed as an a ggr av ate d felo n y. E .g., Gue r r e r o- Perez v. IN S, 242 F. 3d 727, 73 0 ( 7th C ir. 2001).8 N o. 09

- 2288 M o r e i mpo r t a nt l y f o r I s s a q’ s p e t i t i o n, s ub pa r a g r a ph( D) car ves out an exce pti on t o the j uri sdic ti onalb ar f or
“ c o ns t i t ut i o na l c l a i ms o r que s t i o ns o fl a w. ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 2(a )(2) (D ). In ap p lyin g t h i s p ar t o f th e s ta tu te , i t i s i m port ant t o dist i ngui sh be tw een l ega l cl ai m s that m ay be unl i kel y t o prevail from cl ai m s that a re so l acking i n substa nce that th ey should notbe adj ud i cate d at al l

. In ourvi ew , I ssa q’s ar gum en ts falli n the f or m er cate gory, not the latter. T h e firs t p ro b lem w e m u st ad d re ss , ho w ev er , i s w hetherI ssa q’s l ega l ar gum ents ar e besid e the point, because the Board o ffer ed an al ternati ve, f act-base d r e a s o n f o r de ny i ngr e l i e f

. In i t s o r de r, the Bo a r d s a i d: W e furt her fi nd thatthe re spondent has not est abl i shed hi s e l i gibi l i ty f orwithhol ding ofr em ova l ev en i fhe was notbar re d fr om co nsi derat ion . He has no t est abl i shed that hi s l ife or fre edom would be thre atened i n I ra q, a countr y he l eft 18 yea rs ago , be c ause o fhi s r ac e, rel igi o n, na ti o na l i ty, mem be r sh i p i n a par ti cul ars o ci alg r o up, o r po l i ti ca l o pi ni o n. I ssa q’s o nl y a rgum ent about thi s par t ofthe case i s that th e B oard ’s dec isi on reste d on a fl aw ed hearing before th e IJ. H e p h ra se s t h is a s a d u e p ro c es s a r g u m en t, alth o ug h i t woul d b e be tt erc as t as a n a r g um en t th athe did notr ecei ve the f ai r hear i ng t o w hi ch he i s e nti tl ed u n d er the sta tute. S ee Khan v

. M ukas ey, 51 7 F
. 3d 513, 51 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 008). T he key pr o bl em, a s he s ee s i t, was the IJ ’ s f ai l ur e to c ons iderthe Int erna ti o na l Re l i g i o us Fr eedom Repor t. I ssaq has co nt inu ed i n h is petition for review to pu rsu e t h is a rg u m en t. A lth ou gh h is b rie f d oe s n otm a k e itN o. 09

- 2288 9 cl earwh etherhe wis hes t o m ak e thi s point with re spect to b o th wi th h o l d i n g a n d th e C AT , o r j u s t th e CA T, t he Re po r t i s per tine ntto b oth ( se tt i nga si de th e i ss ue wh e th e r h i s c r i me wa s “ p a r t i c ul ar l y s e r i o u s ” ) , a n d s o we w i l l give h im th e b en efitof th e d ou b t a n d co n sid er it f o r b o ththe o ri es . In o urv i ew, hi s co nt en ti o n tha t th e r ecord on whi chthe IJ a nd Bo ar d r el i ed was de fi ci en t i s e nough to support a l eg al a rgum ent with re spect to th e Bo ar d’ s al te r na te ho l di ng . I t i s tr o ubl es o m e tha t the IJ m ade no m enti on o fthe Report

. The Boa rd s eem s t o have re l i ed on a presum pti on of proce du ral regul ar i ty and to have ass um ed that the IJ rea d a nd to ok acc ou n t o f th e R ep or t, bu t w e h av e n o i d e a w h et h er th is i s so . Nor m al l y, we r equi r e th e Bo ar d t o di sc us s th e ke y e vid en c e th at th e p ar tie s h av e p re se n te d . See , e.g., G ebreeyesu s v. G o nz a l e s, 48 2 F
. 3d 952, 95 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( ci ti ng Kay v. Ashcroft, 3 87F
. 3d 66 4, 674 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) , a nd M ans ourv. IN S, 2 30 F
. 3d 90 2, 9 08 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) )

. But I ssa q cann ot obt ai n a r em and on thi s g ro und unl ess he c a n s ho w prej ud i c e fr o m a nyv i o l a t i o n tha to c c ur r e d. Se e Bayo v. N a pol i t ano, 59 3 F
. 3d 495, 50 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( e n b anc )

. The e xc er pt o fthe Re po r t th atwe se t o ut abov e ind i cate s that the probl em o fvi ol ence i s per vasi ve thro ughout I ra q; nothi ng sug ges ts that eve ryA ssy ri an Chr i st i anf ac es a b et te r tha n e ve n c ha nc e o fb eing tor ture d orki l l ed, nori s there anythi ng i n i t t o sugge st that I ssa q f aces a parti cul arr i sk. A l though t h e qu est io n see m s close to us, w e con clud e tha t the Rep ort i s no t en o ug h o n i ts o wn to s up p o r t a fi ndi ngtha t an y pe r s e c ut i o n I ss a q wo ul d f a c e wo ul d o c c ura tthe h a nd s o fg o ve r nm en t ag en ts , o r woul d o th er w is e be c o ndoned by the go ver nm ent.10 N o. 09

- 2288 I n case we are wrong about that, and the evi dence i ncl ud i ng the R epor t w oul d have s up port ed w i thhol ding, we thi nki t pr ud en t t o turn t o I ss aq ’ s o th era r g um en t f orthi s r el i ef

. The I N A st ate s th at “an al i en wh o has been convi cted of an agg ra vate d fel ony ( or fel on ies ) f or w hi ch the al i en has been sentenced to an ag gr ega te te r m o fi m pr i so nm en t o fa t l ea st5 y ea r s shall b e co nsid er ed to h av e c om m itt ed a p ar tic u lar ly s e r i o u s c rim e.” 8 U.S

. C. § 1 231(b)(3) ( B), fi nalpara gr aph. I t a dd s that the Attorney Gener al is also enti tl ed to deter m i ne that, “notwithstandi ng the l ength ofse ntence i m posed, an alie n h as be en co n vic t ed of a p ar tic u lar ly se riou s c rim e.” Id. The que st i o n I ss aq i s r ai sing i s ho w t o i nt er pr etthe phrase “ag gr ega te term o f i m pri sonm ent. ” W hetheran age ncy cor re ctl y i nter prets a sta tute i s a questi on of l aw . S ee H uan g v . M uk a sey, 534 F.3d 618 , 620 (7th C ir. 2008). I ss aqa r g ue s th atthe t er m r efer s o nl y t o the s en tence thatappears i n the cour t’ s ini ti alj ud gm en t. W i th that i n m i nd , he points o ut that h is i ni ti alse ntence f or th e r es i den ti alb ur g l ar y was 1 80 d ays ’ i m pr i so nm en t plus tw o yea rs ’ pro bati on; i t was notunti l he v i ol ate d th e te r m s o fhi s pr o ba ti o n tha t th e se nt en ce was e xtend ed by another fi ve yea rs . Fo cusi ng excl usi vely o n th e in itia l se n te n c e, h e d r aw s t h e c on c lu sio n th at h is cri m e was nota “part i cul ar l y s er i ous” one. I ss aq ’ s po si ti o n, ho wev er, d is r eg ar ds th e us e o fthe w or d “a gg re ga te ” in § 12 31 (b )(3 ) ( B )’s fin al p ar ag ra p h . I f Congre ss had m eant to l oo k s ol el y t o the initia l t er m o f i m pr i s o nme nt, i two ul d h a v e u s e d d i ffe r e ntl a ngua ge. I ns te ad, i t sa i d “ ag g r eg at e te r m , ” a phr as e th atr ul es o utN o. 09

- 2288 11 such a narr ow rea ding. W e c oncl ud e that a l l per i ods o f i mpr i s o nme nta s s o c i a t e d wi th a p a r t i c ul a r c o nv i cti on m us t be c o unted t o war d the fi ve y ea r s spe ci fi ed i n the sta tute. I ssa q’s r esi denti albu rg l ar y c ri m e thus l ed to ana g g r eg at e o fmor e th anfi ve y ea r s’ i m pr i sonm ent and w as a “ parti cul ar l y s er i ous” fel ony f orpurposes o f § 1 231(b) ( 3) ( B). Thi s m ake s i t unneces sar y forus t o deci de w he th er the A tto rneyGenera l abuse d his di scr etio n in c h ar ac te r i zin g t h e c rim e a s “ p ar tic u lar ly se rious” notwiths tandi ng the l ength ofthe sente nce. The g o ve r nm en t co m pl ains tha t I ss aqdi d n ot pr es en t hi s ar g um en t ab o utthe mean i ngo fthe st atut e to the Bo ar d, a nd thus ( i t sa y s) o urj ur i sdi ct i o n i s bar r ed o n a di ffer en t g r o und

— f a i l ur e t o e xh a us t
. I t i s t r ue tha t a n alie n m u st ex h au st “a ll ad m in ist ra tiv e rem ed i e s a va ilab l e to th e al i ena s o fr i g ht, ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 2( d) ( 1) , a nd th atthi s i nc l ude s th e o bl i g at i o n fi r stt o pr es en t t o the Board anyar gum ents that l i e w i thi n i ts pow erto addres s. Ghaf f arv. M ukas ey, 5 5 1 F .3 d 65 1, 65 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Th is i s no t, h ow eve r, a j uri sdic ti onalr ule i n the str i ct s ense th a tthe Su p r e me C o u r th a s e mph a s i z e d we mu s tf o l l o w. See M a rin-R o drig uez v. Ho lder, 20 10 W L 2 75 73 21 ( 7th Ci r. J uly14, 20 10) ( N o. 09

- 3105 ) ( disc ussi ng M orriso n v. Nat’l A ustl. B a nkLtd ., 13 0 S. C t. 28 69 (20 10 ); Ree d El s e vi e r, Inc . v. M uc hni ck, 1 3 0 S

. Ct

. 1 2 3 7( 2 0 1 0 ) ; a nd Un i o n Pa c . R
. R. v. B hd

. o f Lo co m o tiv e E ng ’rs, 13 0 S

. Ct. 58 4 ( 2009 )

. I t i s a cas eproce ssing r ule thatl i m i ts the a rgum ents avai l abl e t o an al i en i n thi s co urt w hen those ar gu m ents have not b ee n rais ed p ro p er ly a t th e a ge n c y lev el. Kors uns kiy v . G o nz a les, 461 F.3d 847, 849-50 (7th C ir. 2006).12 N o. 09

- 2288 Befo r e th e IJ a nd the Boa r d, I ss aqs tr es se d hi s ar g um ent tha t di senti tl em ent t o w i thhol ding ofr em ova l shoul d be co nd i tio n ed o n two fi nd i ngs, notj ust o ne: bo th the c o mm i s s i o n o fa p a r t i c ul a r l y s e r i o us c r i me and a fin d in g that the per son w as a dangerto the com m unity. S ee § 1 231( b) ( 3) ( B) ( i i ) ( no wi thho l di ngwhen“ th e al i en, havi ng be en co nvict ed b y fi nalj ud gm ent o fa parti cul ar l y s er i o us c r i m e i s a dan g ert o the c om m un ity o fthe Uni te d S ta te s” )

. In addi ti o n, ho wev er, he di d r ai se the poi nt abo ut hi s ini ti alte rm o fi m pri sonm ent. W e a re not inclined t o f in d f ail ure to exh au st, p articu larl y as the re i s s om e v al ue i n cl ar i fyi ng the sco pe ofthe sta tute.

B I ss aqa l so a r g ue d tha t he was en ti tl ed to r el i efunde r the CA T. Once ag ai n, the g ove rnm ent a rgues that we have no j uri sdic ti on t o consi der hi s a rgum ent, th is ti m e be

cause I ssa q w as convi cted o fa “pa rt icu l ar l y s er i ous” c rim e a n d als o b ec au se of th e B oa rd ’s fin d in g t h at h is ca se f ai l s o n the f ac ts
. In the e nd , we ag r ee wi ththe gov er nm ent that hi s ca se has no m er i t, but w e r each th atc o nc l us i o n b y a s o m ewha t di ffer en t path. Altho ug h pe ti ti o ns f o r wi thho l di ngof r emov ala nd p et itio n s fo r re lie fu n d er th e C A T are tre at ed ve ry sim ilar ly, th e re gu lat ion s g ov e r n in g t h e C A T ad d on e a d d itional f orm of reli ef for a petitioner: Prote ction u nd er the C onv en tion A gains t Tortu re w i l l be gr anted ei therin th e for m o fwithhol ding of rem oval or in the f orm of de f e r r al of re m oval

.N o. 09

- 2288 13 8 C. F
. R. § 1 2 0 8
. 1 6 ( c ) ( 4 ) ( e mpha s i s a dde d)

. S e c t i o n 1 208. 17 p ro vid es m or e deta i l s about the defer ra l o fr em ova l proce ss: A n al i en wh o: has been or dered r em ove d; has be en f ound un der § 12 08 .16 ( c) ( 3) to be enti tl ed to pro tectio n u n d er th e C on ve n tio n A ga in st T or tu re ; an d is subj e c t t o the pr o v i s i o ns f o r man da t o r y de ni a l o f w i thhol ding of re m ova l und er § 1208

. 16( d)( 2) or( d)( 3) [ whi chi nc l ude c o m m i ss i o n o fa pa r ti cul ar l y s er i o us cr i m e] , s ha l l b e g r an te d defer r alo fr emov alt o the countr y where he o r she i s m or e l i kely than not to b e t o r t ur e d. 8 C

. F. R. § 1208

. 17( a)

. A dd i ti onalpro vi si ons ofthe re gul ati on m ake i t cl ear that defe rr al of re m ova l i s a t least po te nt i al ly a m o r e r es tr i ct ed f o r m o fr el i eftha n wi th

ho l di ng . F o r e xa m pl e, de fer r aldo es no t co nfe r o n the al i en anyl aw ful orper m anent i m m i gr ati on status; defer r alwi ll n ot ne ce ss ar i l y r es ul t i n the a l i enb eing re lea se d fr om the custo dy i fthe al i en i s s ubj ect to such custo dy; and defer ra l does notpro tectag ai ns t rem ova l to a differ ent c ountr y fro m the one i n w hi ch th e ali en i s li kely to be tortured

. § 1208.17(b). This cour t has strugg l ed w i th the questi on wh ether j u d i c i a l r ev i e w o fo r d e r s d e n y i n gr e l i e fu n d e r th e C AT b as ed on th e c om m iss ion o fa n ag gr av at ed felon y is j uri sdic ti onal l y b ar re d. Com pare Tun is v. G o nz a les, 44 7 F. 3d 547, 54 9 (7th C i r. 20 06) ( sta ti ng tha t a n agg ra vate d fel o ny b ar s r ev i ew e xc eptunde r the CAT) , wi th Pet r ov v. G o n z a les, 4 64 F
. 3d 80 0, 8 02 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ho l di ng that eve n a CA T cl ai m i s ba rr ed fro m r evi ew i fi t r esul ts14 N o. 09

- 2288 i n a fi nalo rdero fr em ova l thatr es ts o n a fi nd i ng tha t ana g g r av ated fel o ny was c o m m i tt ed)

. In Pet r ov, we poi nted out that Tun is add re sse d o n l y the effect of § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , w h i c h p r o h ib i t s r e v i e w o fd e c i s i o n s c o mm i tt ed t o th e d i s c r e t i o n o fth e At t o r n e y G e n e r a l o r the Se cre tar y o fH om el and Secur ity , b ut thati t was nece ssary also to take in t o accou nt the effect of § 1252 (a)( 2)(C), w hi ch bar s r evi ew o ffi nalo rder s o fr em ova l ag ai nst cer tain cr i m i nalal i ens. T he S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Negu sie v. Ho lder, 12 9 S. Ct. 11 59 ( 2009 ) , u nd er sco re s the nee d fo r preci si on i n eva l uati ng the m any di ffer ent k i nd s o fcl ai m s that can ari se un d er the im m igrati on law s. T he re the C ou rt w as con cern ed w ith th e so-call ed “p ersecu tor bar” th at ap p li es to ali en s w ho h ave p er s e c u t ed others o n a pr o hibi te d b asis. See 8 U. S

. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 42 )

. The per secu tor b ara ppl i es t o tho se s ee k i nga sy l um o r wi th

hol ding ofr em ova l, but “[ i ] t doe s no t d i squal i fy a n al i en fro m r ecei vi ng a tem pora rydefer ra l o fr em ova l und erthe Conventi on Agai nst Tor ture
. . . . ” 1 29 S. Ct. at 1162 ; se e a l so id. at 1178 n .1 (T hom as, J
. , di sse nti ng) (discu ssing th e rem ed y of d eferral of r em oval). T his ra i se s th e que st i o n whe th era de ci si o n un derthe CA T t o de ny e ve n de fer r al o fr emov alf al l s wi th i n the j ur i s di c t i o n- s t r i pp i ngpro v i s i o ns o fe i the r § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) or§ 125 2(a )(2) ( C). In ourvi ew , the answ eri s no . Once an al i en succe eds i n prov i ng the fa ctualpre re quis i tes f o r r e l i e fu nd e r the CAT , we u nd e r s t a nd Negus i e to h old th a ts o me k i n d o fr e me d y ( c o mpl e t e wi th j u d i c i a l r e v i e w) i s a vai l abl e, ev en fo r perso ns such a s per secuto rs , wh oseN o. 09

- 2288 15 cl ai m s foras yl um o r w i th h oldi ng o fr em ova l ar e ba rr ed an d unr ev i ewabl e. Co ns i st en tly wi th Tun is, then, rel i ef unde r the CAT i s no t ba r r ed by th e b ano n r ev i ewing d iscre t ion ary d ecisions im p osed by § 1252(a)(2)( B ). N o o ne a r g ue d i n Pet r ov thatthe re m edy o fdefer ra l o f re m ova l r equi re s a di stinc t anal ysi s, and so we cannot tak e Pet r ov a s the l a s two r d o n tha tp oi nt
. And i nd e e d, i fan a l i en i s a tte m pti ng to chal l enge onl y a fi nalo rder of re m ov al, as o pp ose d to a defer ra l o fr em ova l, then t h ere is not hin g to criti cize in the h olding of Pet r ov . I f, how eve r, the al i en al so soug h t a nd m i ght ha ve been enti tl ed to the i nherent l y non-fi nalr em edy o fdefer ra l ofr em ova l, then § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( C) ( w hi ch speak s o nl y o f a fi nalo rder ) appears to be i napp l i cabl e. Thi s po ss ibi l i tya ppea r s to b e o fl i tt l e he l p f o r I ssaq, because nothi ng i n the re cor d sugges ts that he was se ek i ng a de fer r alo fr emov al

. He r el i ed i ns te ad o n the a r gume nt tha t hi s du e pr o c e s s r i g ht s we r e v i o l a ted by th e IJ’s fa ilu re to rea d a n d t a k e i n to ac c ou n t t h e fa c ts in the Inter nati onalRel i gi ous F re edom Repor t. A s we note d ea r l i e r , to th e e x te n t t h at th e IJ ind ee d ov er loo ke d th is ev i den ce , the r e is a p o te nt i alpr o bl em. Buti t i s no t o ne th ata l l o ws I ssaq to pr ev ai l i n the e nd, b ec au se he can not show how he w as p rej ud ice d b y t h e IJ’ s error. Eve n t a k i n gth e R e p o r ti n t o a c c o u n t, th e l i n kt o g o v er nm en ta l ac ti o n i s to o wea k, an d th e ev i den ce sho wi ng th at Issa qw ou ld be to rt u re d or kille d is to o c on c lu so ry . Forthes e r eas ons, the peti ti on forr evi ew i s D ENI ED .16 N o. 09

- 2288 R IP P LE, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o n c u r r i n g . Ij o i n i n th e j u d g m en t of the c o ur t, a nd i t s fi ne o pi ni o n wi th the e xc e pt i o n of i ts j uri sdic ti on al di scussi on per taini ng to cl ai m s for d eferral of r em oval un d er the C onv en tion A gainst Tortu r e. I un d er st an d th e c ou rtto ta ke th e v iew th at, in spi te of8 U
. S. C . § 12 52( a) ( 2) ( C), wh i ch bar s r evi ew o f fi nalo rder s o fr em ova l ag ain st cer tain cr i m i nalal i ens, thi s co urt d oes have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew cl ai m s r egar ding the deni alo fdefer ra l o f r em oval m ade bysuch al i ens. Ou r j uri sdic ti on e xtends, acc or ding to the m aj or i ty op i ni on, noto nl y t o thos e pet i ti ons ra i si ng co nsti tuti onal c laim s a n d qu es t i on s o f law , se e id

. § 1252(a)(2) (D), bu t also to c la im s b y a covered ali en that the B oard ’s deter m i nati on r ega rdi ng the l i kelihood o fto rture up on re pa t r i a t i o n i s n o ts up po r t e d b y s ub s t a nt i a l e v i de nc e, seeM aj. op . at 1 4-1 5. A s t h e c ou rtac kn ow led ge s, id

. at15 , thi s quest i on i s no t s quarel y prese nted i n the case befor e us and, ther ef o r e, ne ed no t be dec i ded at th i s ti m e. F ur th er m o r e, Ifi nd th e co ur t’ s r el i an ce o n Negu sie v. Ho lder, 12 9 S

. Ct. 11 59 (20 09 ), P etrov v. G o nz a les , 4 64 F
. 3d 80 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 006) , a nd Tun is v. G o nz a les , 44 7 F
. 3d 547 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , to be a re l ati vel y t hi n re ed upon w hi ch to bas e the co ncl usi on re gar ding our j uri sdic ti on that the co urt re aches today. M or eov er, although o ne o fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts has i nde ed r ea ch ed the s ame r es ul t o n a n e nt i r ely di ffer en t b as is, see Lem us-G a lva n v . M uk a sey , 5 18 F. 3d 1081 , 10 83 ( 9th C ir. 2008) , the cour t nei therdi scusse s no r cri ti ci zes th a ta p p r o a c h

. No r d o e s i td i s c u s s th e o ppo s i n gv i e w. See Sa inth a v. M uk a sey, 51 6 F

. 3d 243, 2 48

- 49 ( 4th Ci r. 20 08)N o. 09

- 2288 17 ( di smi ss i ng, f o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n, a petiti o n s ee k i ng re vi ew of a deci si on denyi ng defe rr al of re m ova l after concl ud i ng that § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( C) a pp l i ed to the defe rr al c l a i m a n d th a tth e e x c e p t i o n f o r c o ns t i t u t i o n a l c l a i ms or qu estions of law did not ap p ly)

. Ithi nk the bet ter c ou rs e is to f ol l ow the approa ch of so m e o fo uro th ers i st erc i r cui ts a nd reserve j udg m en t unti l the i ssue i s square l y prese nted and fully bri efed a n d a r g u ed be for e u s. See D e La R o sa v . Ho lder, 5 9 8 F
. 3d 10 3, 10 7 (2 d C ir. 20 10 ) (n ot in g t h e N in th C irc u it p os iti on but express l y decl i ni ng to d ec i de the i ssue because th e pet i ti o n o nl y pr es en te d a que st i o n o fl aw c o ncern in g elig ibilit y for d efe rra l); Che r i ch e l v. H o lder, 59 1 F

. 3d 1002 , 10 09 , 10 17( 8th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( no tingtha t th e j ur i sdi ct i o nst r i ppi ngpr o vi si o n g en er al l y a ppl i es t o CAT cl ai m s, b ut deci di ngthe c a s e u nd e r the que s t i o n o fl a w e xc e pt i on w i th o uta ny di sc us si o n o ffur th ere xe m pti o ns t o the c rim in al alie n ju ris d ict ion -st rip p in g p ro vis ion th at w ou ld p reserve review of su ch ali en s’ deferral cl aim s).

8- 17- 10