2008 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 1-8-2008 

# L api a sh vi li v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2969

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y 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 mor e 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
" L ap i ash vi l i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1787. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1787NOT 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. 06- 2969 

### LE ILA L AP IASH VILI; MA I A B AT SA SH VI LI Peti ti on er s

v. AT TO RN EYGENE RA L O F T HE UN I TE D S TA TE S R es pondent
Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N os . A 96- 021- 850 and A 96- 021- 888 Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on D ece m ber10, 2007 B efore: R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S, D i s tr i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed J anuary8, 2008)

* H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. P e tit io n e rs L e ila L a p ias h v ili (“ P e tit io n e r-M o th e r” ) a n d M a ia B a tsa sh v ili ( “ P e t i t i o n e r - Da u g h t e r ” ) a p p e a l f r o m th e d e n i a l o f

th e i ra p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m,
w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

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 (“ C A T ” ). P e tit io n e rs a re e th n ic G e o rg ian s. H o w e v e r, P e tit io n e r-M o th e r h a d m o v e d to A b k h a z ia in 1 9 8 1 a n d , the re a f

ter , u p o n re tu rn in g to G e o rg ia, w a s c o n sid e re d a re f u g e e a lo n g w ith P e titio n e r- D a u g h te r. Pet i t i oner s ci t e numer ous pr obl ems theyexper i ence d as r efuge es , i ncl udi ng d i f f i c u l tyi n o b t a i n i n g h o u s i n g a n d e mp l o yme n t . As a r e s u l t , P e t i t i o n e r - M o th e rb e c a me i nvol ved i n pol i t i cs , fi ght i ng forthe r i ght s of G eor gi ans w ho w er e for ci bl ydr i ven outof A bkhazi a. Speci fi cal l y , s he bec ame a m emberof the pol i t i cal party“R oundt abl e- Fr ee G eor gi a” a nd a s uppor t erof M anana A r chvadz e, the w i fe of form erG eor gi an Pr es i dent Z vi ad G amsakhur di a. She part i ci pat ed i n demonstr at i ons i n s uppor tof the r i ght s of ref u g ee s an d , in M arc h 2 0 0 2 , d u ri n g o n e su ch d em o n str ati o n , b o th P eti ti o n ers w ere th ro w n in to a v a n a n d tak e n to a f o re st o u tsid e o f

th e c ityw h e re th e yw e re k e p t in th e c o ld
w i th otherdemonstr at or s fors ever al hour s . T he pol i ce t ook thei rdocument at i on, inclu d ing their refu g ee p ap ers, an d w rote d o w n their ad d resse s. O n lyaf ter i t bec am e d ark di d the pol i ce l etPet i t i oner s go, i n a des ert ed pl ace . T heys t art ed w al ki ng dow n the r oad3

a ttem p tin g to sto p c a rs f o r a ss ista n c e . O n e o f

th e v e h icle s tra v e lin g in th e o p p o site d ir e c tio n f

ro m th e w a yin w h ic h th e yw e re w a lk in g s to p p e d a n d tu rn e d a ro u n d
. U n f o rt u n a te ly, it w a s th e v e ry p o lic e v a n th a t h a d ta k e n th e m to th e w o o d s e a rl ie r. Pet i t i oner s w er e then har as s ed bytw o i nt oxi cat ed pol i ce of fi cer s , one of w hom gr abbed P e tit io n e r-D a u g h ter a n d tried to d ra g h e r in to th e v a n . P e tit io n e rs e v e n tu a llyw e re a b le to
run aw aybeca us e the as s ai l ant s w er e t oo i nebr i at ed t o chas e them. Pet i t i oner s hi d i n t he for es tunt i l i tbeca m e l i ght
. T hei rcl othes w er e t orn and di r ty , and theyw er e brui s ed fr om th e e n c o u n ter w ith th e tw o p o lice o f f ice rs. T h e yre c e iv e d v isits a n d lette rs a f ter th is incid en t w arn ing them n o t t o co m p lai n ab o u t th e p o li ce o ff icers’ co n d u ct. P eti ti o n ers then m et a m an n am ed S h o ta, w h o init ial lyind icated that h e w o u ld h elp th em ; ho w ev er,
o n ce h e lea rne d that theyw ere ref u g ee s, h e re fu sed to b e o f a n yassistan ce . P eti ti o n ers cont i nued t o fea rthatthe tw o pol i cemen w oul d l ocat e them, and theyfi nal l yobt ai ned p assp o rt s an d v isas to the U n it ed S tat es to see k asy lum
. B ase d o n thes e f ac ts, P eti ti o n ers have r eques t ed r el i ef i n t he form of as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r C A T . T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e ter m in e d th a t P e tit io n e r-M o th e r w a s n o t cr e d ib le and that , thateven i f s he w as cr edi bl e, Pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thattheys uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. Speci fi cal l y , the I J concl uded thatthe pol i ce of fi cer s ’ conductthat P eti ti o n ers c h ara cterized as p erse cu ti o n o n ac co u n t of a p rotec ted g rou n d w as n o t sev ere
e n o u g h to c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n a n d , f u rt h e rm o re , w a s th e re s u lt o f lu s t a n d in e b ri a tio n .4

Fur therm or e, he found thatanythr eat eni ng l ett er s and vi s i t s occurr i ng aft erthe i nci dent
w ere noton accou nt of a prot ect ed g round , bu t , rather, w ere i nti m i dati on effo rt s. T he I J al s o found thatPet i t i oner s had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, i n partbeca us e thei rfami l ythatr emai ns i n G eor gi a has nots uffe r ed anytrouble w i th the poli ce or ot her harsh conseq uen ces. F urther, he rul ed that , becau se Pet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , theynece s s ar i l yfai l ed t o m eetthe h igh er stan d ard fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. F inally , the IJ f o u n d that P eti ti o n ers w ere
n o t elig ib le f

o r C A T p ro tec tio n b e c a u se th e yh a d n o t es tab lish e d th a t itw a s m o re lik e ly than notthattheyw oul d be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o G eor gi a. T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss e d P e tit io n e rs’ a p p e a l. W h ile di s agr eei ng w i th t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, the B I A neverthel es s agr eed thatPet i t i oner s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h harm thatr os e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on on acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. W e r evi ew fors ubs t ant i al evi dence the fa ctual fi ndi ngs underpi nni ng a det erm i nat i on bythe I J orB I A thatan al i en i s notel i gi bl e foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of
re m o v a l, o r p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T . A h m e d v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 4 1 F . 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). T h ese fin d ing s m u st be u p h eld “ u n less the e v iden ce n o t on lysu p p o rt s a c o n tr ary concl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” I d. In order t o q uali fyfor asy l um , an ap pli cant m ustdem on strat e t hat s he suf fered past per s ecut i on, orhas a w el l
- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, on acc ountof one of theT he Pet i t i oner s al s o cont end thatthe I J err ed i n notadmi t t i ng document s as t o r ece nt 1 devel opm ent s i n G eor gi a s uppor t i ng Pet i t i oner s ’ cas e bec aus e thes e document s w er e not (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 pr ot ect ed gr ounds — r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup,
o r p o litic a l o p in io n . G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 271- 72 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. H er e, s i nce the re co rd e v iden ce d o es n o t com p el us to d o so , w e w il l no t distu rb th e a g en cy ’s concl us i on thatthe harm Pet i t i oner s s uffe r ed di d notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on and
w as noton acc ountof a pr ot ect ed gr ound, ori t s concl us i on thatPet i t i oner s di d not d e m o n stra te a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . B e c a u se P e tit io n e rs f a iled to
s at i s fythe l es s ers t andar d of pr oof r equi r ed foras y l um el i gi bi l i ty , theynece s s ar i l yhave
a ls o f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te e lig ib ility f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) F u rth e r, in o rd e r to o b tain p ro tec tio n u n d e r C A T , the b u rd e n u p o n a n a lien is to estab li sh that sh e w il l be to rtu red b ythe g o v ern m en t, o r w ith the g o v ern m en t’ s acqu i escence. W hil e no l i nk t o a st atutor i l yprot ect ed g round i s necessary , no nethel ess, there m ustbe a sho w i ng of sub st anti al groun ds — i
. e. , thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan nott hat sh e w ill b e to rtu re d if

re tu rn e d to th e d e sig n a ted c o u n try . 8 C .F .R . 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(2 ); A u g u ste
v. R i dge , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 4 8 -4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re c o rd is d e v o id o f s u c h a s h o w in g . T h ere fo re, w e c o n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the IJ’s an d the B IA ’s deci s i on thatthe Pet i t i oner s di d nots how thattheyqual i fi ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of
r e mov a l , o rr e l i e f

u n d e rCA T. 1(
. . . cont i nued) 1 s ubm i t t ed i n conform ance w i th t he appl i cabl e t en- dayrul e. W hi l e thes e document s m i ght bol s t erthe ar gum entthatther e i s ongoi ng confl i ctbetw een A bkhazi a and G eor gi a, they a re n o t p e rsu a siv e a s to th e sp e c if ic a lleg a tio n s o f

p e rse c u tio n a n d to rtu re v is-a -v is Pet i t i oner s , and w e ther efor e conc l ude thati f ther e w as err ori n thi s r egar d, i tw as harm l ess. 6 Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e P e t i t i o n f o rRe v i e w m u s tb e DE NI E D.