2006 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 6-29-2006 

# Adesoya 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 . 05-3048

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_2006

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 2006 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 " Ade s o ya v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 816. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/816H o n o ra b le J o h n R . G ib so n , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C irc u it, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

- 1- NOT 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 os . 05- 3048 & 05- 3049 B O SE A D E SO Y A , Pet i t i oneri n 05- 3048

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, M O SH O O D E M I O L A A J I J O L A , Pet i t i oneri n 05- 3049 v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om 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 78 830 913 & A 96 262 856) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N , and JO H N R . G IB S O N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed J une 29, 2006)- 2- OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. B e f o re u s a re th e p e tit io n s f o r re v iew f

iled b yB o se A d e so y a a n d M o sh o o d E m io la A j i j ol a and the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s A des oy a’ s pet i t i on. Forthe r eas ons s et for th her ei n, w e w i l l di s m i s s A des oy a’ s pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, and w i l l deny A j i j ol a’ s pet i t i on. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e p a rties , o u r re latio n o f th e f a c ts is c o n f

in e d to thos e nec es s aryt o ouradj udi cat i on. A des oy a and A j i j ol a ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of N i ger i a, and ar e mar r i ed t o eac h other . A des oy a pr ofes s es t o be a Chri s t i an, and A j i j ol a a M us l i m . T heys eek a s y l um i n the U ni t ed St at es on the bas i s thattheyhave s uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n N i ger i a on ac countof thei ri nt er fai th r el at i ons hi p, and thattheyw oul d fac e f u rth e r p e rse c u tio n if

th e yre tu rn e d th e re . T h e c o u p le m e t an d b e g a n th e ir re latio n sh ip in K aduna, N i ger i a i n 1996. T heykepti ts ecr etforthr ee y ear s beca us e the pr evai l i ng i nt erpr et at i on of I s l ami c l aw forbade s uch uni ons . A j i j ol a’ s fatherw as a M us l i m r el i gi ous lea d e r in th e c o m m u n ity , an d w h e n h e e v e n tu a llylea rn e d o f th e re latio n sh ip , h e se t o u t to s t op i tbeca us e i tvi ol at ed Shar i ’ a. A ccor di ng t o the coupl e, he undert ook a “c ampai gn of ter ro r,” B r. o f

P e t. 6., aid e d b yo th e r M u slim s in K a d u n a . G ro u p s o f M u slim s w e n t to A des oy a’ s fami l y ’ s hous e on s ever al occa s i ons t o w arn the fa m i l ythatA des oy a w oul d be k il led if sh e a n d A

ji jola p ersist ed in the irrelati o n sh ip. A d eso y a testi fied that A ji jola’s- 3-

f a th e r h a d h e r f

a m ily ’s h o u se b u rn e d , tha t h e r p a re n ts d ied in th e f ire , an d th a t sh e o n ly s ur vi ved bec aus e s he w as ata chur ch choi rpr act i ce. T he fi r e occ urr ed dur i ng gener al re lig io u s rio tin g in th a t ar e a . A d e so y a a lso tes tifie d th a t re se ttl e m e n t in a n o th e r sta te in N i ger i a w as notan opt i on beca us e a pe r vas i ve netw or k of M us l i m s w ho r ead Shar i ’ a i n a m anners ever el yadver s e t o the coupl e exi s t ed, and w oul d ki l l them w her evertheyw er e. Im m e d ia te ly af

te r t h e f ir e , th e c o u p le f

le d K a d u n a , a n d u ltim a te ly le f t N ig e ri a . A des oy a and A

j i j ol a tr avel ed s epar at el yfora t i m e, butr euni t ed i n Fr ance i n J anuaryof 2001. Fr om ther e, A des oy a ca m e t o the U ni t ed St at es , fol l ow ed byA j i j ol a. O n M ay6, 2003, A j i j ol a w as char ged w i th r emovabi l t i y ; he conc eded the cha r ge ata J une 3, 2003 hear i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , and he w as or der ed r emoved t o N i ger i a. A des oy a had notbeen c har ged as r emovabl e, buton M ar ch 13, 2002, s he fi l ed an a s y l um - onl yappl i cat i on, and s oughtder i vat i ve as y l um forA j i j ol a as h e r sp o u se . T h e tw o c a se s w e re c o n so lid a ted in im m ig ra tio n c o u rt. A t a M a y8 , 2 0 0 2 h e a rin g , the IJ s e t a J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 d e a d lin e to su b m it ev id e n c e in s uppor tof the appl i cat i on, and l at erext ended the dea dl i ne t o A ugus t1, 2003 – m or e than a y e a r la ter . T h e c a se p ro c e e d e d to a m e rits h e a rin g o n Ja n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e re th e c o u p le t es t i fi ed as s etfor th above. A tthe hea r i ng, the I J expr es s ed doubtas t o A des oy a’ s and A j i j ola’ s evi den ce as t o thei r r espect i ve rel i gions. A w eek l at er , on J anuary15, 2004, A des oy a and A j i j ol a moved t o r eopen the pr ocee di ng t o admi tm or e evi dence . I n a has t i l y - convene d t el ephone he ar i ng i n w hi ch the governm entw ai ved form al not i ce, couns el forA des oy a and A j i j ol a s oughtt o i ntr oduce let ters fro m an im am at A ji jola’s m o sq u e, an d a p asto r at A d eso y a’s c h u rch . T h e lett ers- 4-

w e re d a ted a f

ter th e m e rits h e a rin g , an d a ttes ted to A jij o la’ s a n d A d e so y a ’s m e m b e rsh ip in th e ir re sp e c tiv e re lig io u s c o m m u n iti e s. C o u n se l sta ted th a t th e c o u p le h a d g iv e n h im the l ett er s aft erthe hea r i ng. T he I J deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen, and pr ocee ded t o deny as y l um . T he I J ent er ed an or derof r emoval agai ns tA j i j ol a, butbeca us e A des oy a had not been c har ged w i th r emovabi l i ty , the I J r eturned hercas e t o the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyforfur thercons i der at i on. A d eso y a a n d A

ji jola ap p ea led to the B o ard o f Im m igrati o n A p p ea ls ( “B IA ”), w h ich a ff

irm ed w ith o u t op inion o n F eb rua ry2 2 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e c o u p le t im elym o v ed the B IA t o r eopen thei rcas e on A pr i l 12, 2005. I n thi s m ot i on, theypr es ent ed tw enty - fi ve d o c u m e n ts th e ya lleg e d w e re u n a v a ilab le a t th e tim e o f th e ir m e rits h e a rin g in im m ig ra tio n c o u rt. T h e se in c lu d e d lette rs, a f f id a v its, n e w s a rticle s, a n d o th e r d o c u m e n ts offe r ed t o s how the coupl e’ s r es pect i ve r el i gi ous fai ths and pr act i ces i n N i ger i a, and the per s ecut i on theyfac ed as a r es ul t . T he B I A deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen on M ay17, 2 0 0 5 . O n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , A d e so y a a n d A jij o la tim e lyp e tit io n e d f o r re v iew b yth is C o u rt. II. A. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r Ajijo la ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e s to d is m is s A d e s o y a ’s p e titio n f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . W e w i l l gr antthe mot i on. A des oy a w as pl ace d i n “as y l um - onl y ” pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch do nott es tthe i s s ue of he rul t i m at e r emovabi l i ty . U pon deny i ng A des oy a’ s appl i cat i on, t he I J or der ed hercas e r eturned t o the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) “for fur thercons i der at i on. ” The B I A aff i r m ed thi s or der . Sect i on 1252( a) ( 1) gr ant s us- 5-

j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval , butthe di s pos i t i on of A des oy a’ s cas e has notr es ul t ed i n s uch an or der . C ontr aryt o hercont ent i on, the pr es ents i tuat i on i s not “t antam ou nt” t o a final order of rem ov al . S everal cou rt s of ap peals have hel d thata “f i nal or derof r emoval ” i ncl udes “deni al of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef dur i ng a deport at i on pr ocee di ng, w her e s uch r el i ef, i f gr ant ed, w oul d for ecl os e deport at i on. ” K anac evi c v. I N S, ___ F. 3d

___, 2006 W L 1195925, at*3 ( 2d C i r . M ay5, 2006) ( quot i ng Perkovi c v. I N S, 33 F. 3d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )); ac co rd N rek a v . A tty . G en . , 4 0 8 F . 3 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 7 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e se c a se s a re d istin g u ish a b le. In th e se situ a tio n s, th e d e n ial o f re lief e ss e n tially f u n c tio n e d a s a re m o v a l o rd e r, a c irc u m sta n c e n o t p re se n t h e re . F o r in sta n c e , in K anac evi c, the courthel d thatdeni al of as y l um t o an al i en i n the V i s a W ai verPr ogr am ( “V W P”) w as aki n t o a fi nal or derof r emoval beca us e V W P part i ci pant s m aybe r emoved w ith o u t b e n e f

it o f re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . 2 0 0 6 W L 1 1 9 5 9 2 5 , a t * 3 ; s e e 8 U .S .C . § 1187( b) ( 2) ( V W P par t i ci pantm us tw ai ve r i ght“t o cont es t , otherthan on the bas i s of an ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum , an yac ti o n fo r rem o v al . . . . ”). H er e, the or derw oul d m er el yr eturn A des oy a’ s cas e t o D H S forfur ther c o n sid e ra tio n . B yitse lf , this c o u ld n o t re su lt i n h e r re m o v a l. R a th e r, th e a g e n c yw o u ld have t o s ecur e an or derof r emoval agai ns therthr ough form al r emoval pr ocee di ngs . See 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( a) ( 3) ( “U nl es s otherw i s e s peci fi ed i n thi s chapt er , a pr ocee di ng under thi s s ect i on s hal l be the s ol e and e xcl us i ve pr ocedur e fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en m ayb e . . . rem o v ed fro m the U n it ed S tat es.”). T h o u g h A d eso y a a rgu es th at “the re w oul d be nothi ng l eftfor[her ] t o appea l , ” w e di s agr ee: s he w oul d be abl e t o pet i t i on for r evi ew of the fi nal or derof r emoval ( i f one w er e ent er ed aga i ns ther ) , and w i th i t , the- 6-

pr es entdeni al of heras y l um appl i cat i on. B. W her e the B I A ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen r es t s on i t s det erm i nat i on “thatt he m ovanthas fai l ed t o i ntr oduce pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi dence thatj us t i fi es r eopeni ng, ” ourr evi ew i s forabus e of di s cr et i on. Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 171 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng I N S v. A budu, 485 U . S. 94, 105 ( 1988) ) . I n contr as t , w her e the deni al i s founded upon f ai l ur e t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e forr el i ef, w e r evi ew fi ndi ngs of fa ctfors ubs t ant i al evi dence , and the ul t i m at e dec i s i on w hethert o r eopen f or a b u se o f d isc re tio n . Id . at 1 7 4 . T h e B IA a b u se s its d isc re tio n w h e re its d e c isio n is “arbi tr ary , i rr at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ” I d. ( quot i ng T i pu v. I N S, 20 F. 3d 580, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) . I n gener al , m ot i ons t o r eopen a r e di s favor ed. K orytnyuk v. A s hcr oft , 396 F .3 d 2 7 2 , 2 9 3 n .2 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A jij o la a lso ra ise s a d u e p ro c e ss c laim , w h ich is su b ject t o p lena ryrev iew . S ing h v . G o n za les, 4 3 2 F . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . W e now turn t o the mer i t s of A j i j ol a’ s pet i t i on. T he mot i on t o r eopen be for e the B IA p re se n ted a b e v yo f m a ter ial – 2 5 se p a ra te e x h ib its – b u t th e B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b ye x c lu d in g it. “ A m o tio n to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s s h a ll n o t b e g ra n ted u n les s it a p p e a rs to th e B o a rd th a t ev id e n c e so u g h t to b e o f f e re d is m a ter ial a n d w a s n o t av a ilab le a n d c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e re d o r p re s e n te d a t th e f o rm e r h e a ri n g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . T he fi r s ts etof evi dence i s a col l ect i on of l ett er s and af fi davi t s that A des oy a and A

j i j ol a obt ai ned af

t erthei rm er i t s hear i ng. T hough the mat er i al s and the m o tio n d o p ro f

f e r so m e e x p lan a tio n f

o r th e ir tar d in e ss , the yd o n o t v e n tu re b e y o n d f latly- 7-

c o n c lu s o ry a s s e rt io n s th a t th e d e c la ra n ts w e re u n a v a ila b le , o u t o f to u c h , o r s im p ly aw a y . W i thoutm or e s ubs t ant i al expl anat i ons , w e ca nnots aythatthe B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on – that i s, that i tw as “arbitrary , i rr at i on al , or contr aryt o law ” – to con cl ud e t hat these m a ter ials c o u ld h a v e b e e n o b tain e d p rio r to , an d p re se n ted a t, th e Ja n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 4 m e rits hear i ng. T he evi dence r egar di ng countrycondi t i ons i n N i ger i a w as ar guabl yunavai l abl e at th e tim e o f

th e h e a rin g , b u t itw o u ld n o t se rv e to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se o f

e lig ib ili ty forr el i ef. T he B I A m ay , of cour s e, denyr eopeni ng w her e the new evi dence w oul d notbe s u f f i c i e n tt o m a k e o u ta p r i m a f a c i e c a s e f

o rr e l i e f. S e v o i a n , 2 9 0 F . 3 d a t1 6 9 - 7 0 . We r evi ew the det erm i nat i on of w hethera pr i m a fa ci e ca s e has been made outfors ubs t ant i al evi dence . I d. at174. A n as y l um appl i cantm us ts how pas tper s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on. M ul anga v. A s hcr oft , 349 F. 3d 123, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . H er e, the B IA sim p lystat ed that the n ew s arti cles p rese n ted in the m o ti o n to reo p en w ere in su f f icie n t to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se f

o r re lief , an d d id n o t ela b o ra te. H o w e v e r, itis g lar in g lyo b v io u s th a t th e a rticle s d o n o th in g to sh o w d e ter io ra tin g c o n d iti o n s in N ig e ria s uch thatA

j i j ol a coul d notavoi d per s ecut i on byavoi di ng di s cr et e ar eas . See V ent e v. G onzal es , 415 F. 3d 296, 303 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng under8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( b) ( 3) ( i ) t hat app l i cant has burden t o sho w no po ssi bil i tyof int ernal rel ocati on w here no past per s ecut i on s how n, and futur e per s ecut i on notattr i but abl e t o governm entorgovernm ent s pons or s hi p) . I ndeed, the art i cl es r efe rt o s tr i fe a nd vi ol ence onl yi n the ci tyof K ano and th e sta te o f

P late a u . T h e yd o n o t su g g e st th a t A jij o la w o u ld f

a c e d a n g e r e lse w h e re in N i ger i a. A ccor di ngl y , the B I A ’ s concl us i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and- 8-

the B oard did no tabu se i t s di scr et i on byden y i ng reopen i ng as t o the ar t i cl es. Fi nal l y , A

j i j ol a cont ends thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng the mot i on t o r eopen v iolated d u e p roc ess b ec au se itd id n o t give a su ff ici en t st atem en t of

rea so n s. T o co m p o rt w i th due pr oces s , the B I A m us taff or d al i ens ( 1) “fa ct fi ndi ng bas ed on a r ecor d pr oduced b e f o re th e d e c isio n m a k e r a n d d isc lo se d to h im o r h e r” ; (2 ) a n o p p o rtu n ityf o r th e a lien to pr es entar gum ent s ; and ( 3) “an i ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on of hi s orheri nt er es t s . ” A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i ons , i nt ernal quot at i on m arks , and modi fi cat i ons om i t t ed) . “A deci s i onm akerm us t‘ actual l ycons i derthe evi dence and ar gum entthata partypr es ent s . ’ ” I d. at549- 50. H er e, the B I A ’ s deci s i on m etthes e r equi r ement s , even i f i tw as r athert er s e. I n part i cul ar , the B I A pl ai nl ygave i ndi vi dual i zed c ons i der at i on t o the exhi bi t s and ar gum ent s pr es ent ed on appe al , but rej ect ed them as a basi s for grant i ng the m oti on t o reope n. U nd er the cir cum st ances, A bd ulai requi res no m ore than this . V. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l grantthe g ov ernm ent’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss A des oy a’ s pet i t i on, and denyA j i j ol a’ s pet i t i on.