2009 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 8-25-2009 

# Zainul Ab edin 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 . 08-1470

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Zainul Abe d in v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 785. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/785NOT 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. 08- 1470

___________ Z AI NUL AB E DI N, 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 es pondent

O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r 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 79 733 608 I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e : R . K . M a l l o y

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay6, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t25, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Z ainu l A b ed in ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( B IA ), w h i c h d i s m i s s e d h i s a p p e a l o f a n I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( I J ’ s ) f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l . We wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. Z ai nul A bedi n i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Paki s t an. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as2

a c re w m a n in 1 9 9 7 a n d re m a in e d lo n g e r th a n p e rm itt e d . In 2 0 0 3 h e w a s p lac e d in r emoval pr ocee di ngs , and he a ppl i ed foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) found thathi s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , butcons i der ed hi m for w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). I n hear i ngs befor e the I J , A bedi n t es t i fi ed thathe i s a mem berof the Paki s t an M us l i m L eague - N aw az G r oup ( PM L ) , and thathe j oi ned the part yi n 1990. H e t es t i fi ed t hatN aw az Shar i f w as i n pow eratt he t i m e. W hen hi s part yw as noti n pow er , he w itn e ss e d h is f

rie n d s b e in g b e a ten u p . H e h im se lf w a s n o t b e a ten , b e c a u se h e w a s in hi di ng her e and ther e. H e t es t i fi ed thati f he r eturned t o Paki s t an, he bel i eved that m e m b e rs o f

h is p a rtyw o u ld b e a rre ste d . H is w if e a n d th re e c h ild re n c o n tin u e to liv e in P akis t an. H e has on e son w ho i s a perm anen tres i den tof the U nit ed S t at es. T he I J found thatA bedi n’ s t es t i m onythathe w as an ac t i ve part ym emberw as not cr edi bl e, as hi s j ob as a cr ew m an meanthe w as oft en ats ea f orni ne mont hs orm or e. T he I J found thateven i f hi s t es t i m onyw as cr edi bl e, i tw as notcl earthathe had t o l eave Paki s t an, as hi s par t yw as i n pow erw hen he l eft . T he C our tnot ed thatA bedi n i s i n poor heal t h, and s pecul at ed thati tw as unl i kel yhe w oul d be ac t i vel yi nvol ved i n pol i t i cs i f he r etur ned t o Paki s t an. T he I J deni ed r el i ef, butgr ant ed vol unt arydepartur e. O n appea l , t he B I A hel d t hatthe I J pr oper l yfound thatA bedi n’ s as y l um app l i cat i on w as unti m el y . T he B IA no t ed thatA bed i n h ad n ot chal l eng ed the I J’ s adverse cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng on appea l , and found thatthe I J pr oper l ydet erm i ned thatA bedi n hadI n anyevent , abs enta cons t i tut i onal cl ai m orques t i on of l aw , w e l ack 1 j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a det erm i nat i on r egar di ng the t i m el i nes s of an a s y l um appl i cat i on or t he exi s t ence of cha nged orextr aor di naryci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng l at e fi l i ng. S u k w an p u tr a v . G o n za les, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B eca us e A bedi n has notchal l enged the fi ndi ng thathe w as i nel i gi bl e forpr ot ect i on 2 u n d er the C A T , h is cl aim is w aive d . C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3 f a ile d to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f f o r 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 A T . T he B I A di s m i s s ed the appe al , butgr ant ed 60 day s vol unt arydepartur e. A bedi n fi l ed a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. A b e d in h a s n o t ch a llen g e d th e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t h is a sy lu m c laim w a s u n tim e ly f iled . T h u s, w e c o n f

in e o u r re v iew to th e d e n ial o f w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T a rra w a lly 1 2 v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew the fi nal or derof the B I A , but to th e e x ten t th a t th e B IA a d o p ts p a rts o f th e IJ’ s o p in io n , w e re v iew th e IJ’ s o p in io n to det erm i ne w hethert he B I A ’ s deci s i on t o defe rt o t he I J w as appr opr i at e. Z hang v. G o n z a le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Wh e r e a s a s y l u m i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y , wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 (b)(3 )(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ), is m an d atoryif th e a p p li ca n t m ee ts a m o re s t r i ngents t andar d–t hati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” thathe ors he w i l l be per s ecut ed on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on i f deport ed t o hi s orherhom e countr y . L ukw ago v. I N S, 329 F. 3d 157, 182 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A n IJ ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n is re v ie w e d f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S e e B e rish a

j v . A sh c ro f

t, 37 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili tyT he pr ovi s i ons of the R eal I D A ctof 2005 conc erni ng the C our t ’ s r evi ew of an 3 adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng do notappl yi n t hi s cas e bec aus e A bedi n appl i ed forr el i ef befor e the A ct ’ s eff

ect i ve dat e. See K ai t a v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 522 F .3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 4 d e ter m in a tio n s b a se d o n sp e c u latio n o r c o n jec tu re a re n o t u p h e ld . S e e G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 29 9 F . 3d 26 6, 27 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). U nd er this st and ard, this C ou rtup ho l ds an ad verse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n u n les s “ a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. 3 A bedi n ar gues t hatt he I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as “fl aw ed” be caus e s he conc l uded th a t A b e d in c o u ld n o t h a v e a c re d ib le f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se h e lef t w h ile th e p a rty he s uppor t ed w as i n pow er . W e agr ee w i t h A bedi n t hat , al t hough he maynothave ha d a fea rof per s ecut i on w hen he l eftPaki s t an, he mi ghthave ha d a cr edi bl e fe arof per s ecut i on ata l at erdat e, w hen the Paki s t an M us l i m L eague - N aw az G r oup w as no l ongeri n pow er . H ow ever , t he I J deni ed r el i ef, atl eas ti n par t , beca us e s he “[ di d] not fi nd r es pondent ’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e thathe w as an ac t i ve mem berof the Paki s t an M u s lim L e a g u e .” A .R . 4 6 . A b e d in d id n o t c h a lle n g e th is f in d in g o n a p p e a l to th e B IA . T he I J al s o deni ed r el i ef be caus e A bedi n di d notpr ovi de corr obor at i on of hi s cl ai m –he

“ d i d n o ts u b mi ta n yd o c u me n t s t o s u p p o r th i s s t a t e me n tth a th e i s a me mbe ro f th e PM L, Paki s t an M us l i m L eague . ” A . R . 47. T he I J not ed thatA bedi n had bee n i n i m m i gr at i on p ro c e e d in g s f

o r th re e y e a rs, a n d th u s c o u ld h a v e o b tain e d th e d o c u m e n ts, w h ich h e sa idI tappea r s t hatA bedi n m eanthe l eftthe document s i n Paki s t an. H e not ed thathe has 4 cont actw i t h hi s w i fe i n Paki s t an. A . R . 123. W e dec l i ne A bedi n’ s i nvi t at i on t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of change d countr ycondi t i ons 5 i n P a k i s t a n , a s o u rr e v i e w i s c o n f i n e d t o th e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s . 8 U. S . C. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) ; B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e furt her cannotcons i derhi s cl ai m t hatt he att orneyw ho r epr es ent ed hi m befor e the I J w as inef fe cti v e, as h e d id n o t r aise the claim b ef o re the B IA . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). 5 he had l eft“athom e. ” A . R . 47; A . R . 127. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d does notcompel us 4 t o fi nd t hatA bedi n es t abl i s hed thr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m onyordocument aryevi dence t hat h e was a n a c t i v e me mbe ro f t h e PM L. A bedi n al s o ar gues t hatt he I J err ed i n det erm i ni ng, w i t houtr ecor d s uppor t , that A bedi n w as notl i kel yt o par t i ci pat e i n pol i t i cs i f he r eturned t o Paki s t an. I ti s true that A bedi n w as nots peci fi cal l yas ked w hetherhe w oul d par t i ci pat e i n pol i t i cs i n Paki s t an; h o w e v e r, i t w a s o f

c o u rs e h is b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h w h yh e w o u ld f e a r r e tu rn in g to P a k is ta n . A bedi n’ s onl yevi dence i n s uppor tof hi s fea rof futur e per s ecut i on w as hi s vague s t at ementt hatpeopl e w ho bel ong t o t he PM L and peopl e w ho s peak a gai ns tG ener al M us harr af w i l l getarr es t ed. A . R . 123. T hats t at ementdoes notcompel us t o fi nd that A b e d in w ill f

a c e p e rse c u tio n , p a rticu lar lyw h e n c o u p led w ith th e f in d in g th a t A b e d in d id no tcredi blyest abli sh t hat he had been act i ve in poli t i cs befo re he l eftP akis t an. W e al so fi nd t hatt he I J di d noterri n cons i der i ng the fa ctthatA bedi n, w ho had bee n i n poor h e a l t h i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s , wa s u n l i k e l yt o e n g a g e i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t yi n P a k i s t a n . A. R. 47. B eca us e A bedi n di d notcr edi bl yes t abl i s h t hati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe wo u l d b e p e r s e c u t e d i n P a k i s t a n , we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 5