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 11-14-2006 

# Amoh 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 . 05-3926

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 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 " Amo h v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 211. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/211NOT 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 

### No. 05- 3926 SA MU ELW . AM OH , Peti ti on er

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt PETI TI O N FO R R EV I EW O F A D EC I SI O N O F THE B OA RD OF I M M I GR ATI ON APPEALS

A gencyN o. A 96 265- 643 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember6, 2006 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, B A R R Y and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es

( Fi l ed: N ovember14, 2006 )

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge Pet i t i oner , Sam uel W . A m oh, a nat i ve of G hana a nd a ci t i zen of L i ber i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng theT he or i gi nal N ot i ce t o A ppearchar ged thatA m oh i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G hana. 1 A tt he N ovember4, 2003 hear i ng, A m oh as ked thatthe N ot i ce be amended t o r efl ectt hat he i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of L i ber i a. T he I J gr ant ed thi s r eques t . A tthe February20, 2004 h ea ri n g , h o w ev er, th e IJ n o ted th at A m o h w as b o rn in G h an a a n d h ad o b tai n ed a p assp o rt ther e, and cha nged the N ot i ce t o r efl ectthatA m oh w as a nat i ve of G hana a nd a ci t i zen of L i ber i a. A l l par t i es agr ee thatA m oh w as natur al i zed i n L i ber i a i n 1968. N o evi dence w as p re se n ted re g a rd in g A m o h ’s b rie f sta yin G h a n a , an d n o a rg u m e n t m a d e th a t h is s tay i n G h a n a h a s a n yle g a l s ig n if ic a n c e f o r p u rp o s e s o f

th is a p p lic a tio n . 2 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e n ial o f h is a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on. I. A m oh ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on O ct ober9, 2002 as a vi s i t orforpl eas ur e and w as author i zed t o r emai n i n t he countr yunt i l A pr i l 9, 2003. H avi ng fai l ed t o l eave the countrybyt hatdat e, he w as s erved bythe D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t yw i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear , w hi ch al l eged thathe w as r emovabl e as a non- i m m i gr antw ho r emai ned i n t he U ni t ed St at es fora per i od of t i m e l ongerthan perm i t t ed, i n vi ol at i on of s e c tio n 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ) o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) . H e fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and p ro tec tio n u n d e r C A T , an d , at a N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 3 h e a rin g , co n c e d e d th e c h a rg e w h ile r eas s er t i ng hi s var i ous cl ai m s forr el i ef. A hear i ng on A m oh’ s appl i cat i on w as hel d on February20, 2004. A m oh t es t i fi ed thathe w as bor n i n G hana a nd l at err el ocat ed t o, and w as natur al i zed i n, L i ber i a. A m oh, 13

h is w ife, an d h is w ife’s f am il y , the latt er tw o b elon g ing to the K rah n ethn ic gro u p , w ere i nvol ved i n t he pol i t i cal part ys uppor t i ng Sam uel D oe. I n 1989, ci vi l w arbr oke out , as re b e ls s u p p o rtin g C h a rle s T a y lo r e n ter e d th e c o u n tryv ia th e Iv o ryC o a st. Fol l ow i ng t he outbr eak of ci vi l w ar , A m oh began t o exper i ence tr oubl e w i t h r ebel “l aw l es s nes s . ” ( A . R . 206. ) I n J une 1990, r ebel s ent er ed the ca m pus of the N at i onal Y o u th C e n ter , w h e re A m o h tau g h t cla ss e s in m e tal c o n stru c tio n a n d m a so n ry . T h e re b e ls t i ed u p A m oh al on g w i t h seven otherst aff m em bers, broke int o a v aulton the cam pu s, st ole m on ey , and even tuall ykil l ed the schoo l ’s accou ntantand fou r other st aff m em bers. A m o h w a s n o t h a rm e d . Seeki ng t o avoi d t he erupt i ng vi ol ence , A m oh t ook hi s fami l yand fl ed t o K unT o w n , a v ill a g e d e e p in th e L ib e ria n f o re st. In K u n -T o w n , reb e ls e n g a g e d in a se e m in g ly r el ent l es s ons l aughton “[e ] verybodythatthey[m et ] ther e” ( A . R . 206) , as theys t ol e food a n d ra p e d w o m e n a n d c h ild re n . A m o h ’s w if e w a s ra p e d a n d th e re b e ls f o rc e d A m o h to stan d alon g side an d sing . F o ll o w ing this i n cide n t, the re b els l ea rne d o f A m o h ’s as s oci at i on w i t h Sam uel D oe’ s governm ent . Fr i ght ened, A m oh and hi s fami l yfl ed t o the v ill a g e o f

S h e lo , in th e F o y a a re a b o rd e rin g G u in e a . F ro m 1 9 9 2

– 2 0 0 1 , the f a m ily re m a in e d in S h e lo a n d e n d u re d f re q u e n t h a ra s s m e n t f

ro m th e re b e ls . In 2 0 0 1 , the f

am il yh ea d ed ac ross the b o rde r t o G u inea . S h o rt lythere af ter, A m o h ’s w if

e a n d th e ir c h ild re n re lo c a ted to a re f u g e e c a m p in G h a n a , w h e re th e yre m a in t o thi s day . A m oh di d notj oi n t hem, but , r ather , r eturned t o Foy a. T her e, fur t herr ebelA m o h tes tifie d th a t h is f a th e r-in -la w w a s a rre ste d w ith h is w if e ’s u n c le, b u t h e d id 2 nott es t i fyas t o hi s father - i n- l aw ’ s fat e. ( A . R . 155–56. ) I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, A m oh i ndi cat ed thathe w as , i n fac t , ki l l ed. 4 vi ol ence — t hi s t i m e byr ebel s l ooki ng t o ous tC har l es T ay l or— pl agued A m oh. A m oh l eft in M a rc h 2 0 0 2 . H e o b ta in e d a p a s s p o rt in G h a n a a n d tr a v e le d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . I n addi t i on t o hi s exper i ence s w i t h t he r ebel s , A m oh t es t i fi ed thathi s w i fe’ s uncl e, w ho w as a tr i bunal chai r m an underSam uel D oe, w as exec ut ed and thathi s m otherand br otherw er e al s o ki l l ed. 2 Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on deny i ng A m oh’ s appl i cat i on butgr ant i ng vol unt arydepartur e, or , on hi s fai l ur e t o s o depart , or der i ng hi m t o be r emoved t o L i ber i a. T he I J concl uded thatA m oh had notcarr i ed hi s bur den of s how i ng thatthe ac t s of per s ecut i on he al l egedl ys uffe r ed w er e r el at ed i n anyw ayt o t he fi ve en u m era ted g rou n d s p rov ided in the IN A fo r qu ali fica ti o n as a “re fu g ee . ” R athe r, a c c o rd in g to th e IJ, A m o h w a s th e v ictim o f “ w h a t h a s h a p p e n e d to m o st p e o p le in L i ber i a” c aughti n t he mi ds tof “a horr i bl e, tr agi c ci vi l w ar , ” i . e. “gene r al vi ol ence att he hands of the r ebel s . ” ( A . R . 120–21. ) I n addi t i on, the I J det erm i ned thatA m oh, des pi t e an open l i ne of c om m uni cat i on w i t h hi s fami l yi n G hana, fai l ed t o offe rcorr obor at i on su p p o rtin g h is c laim s th a t v a rio u s f a m ilym e m b e rs w e re k ill e d o n a c c o u n t o f th e ir pol i t i cal opi ni ons . B yor derdat ed J ul y20, 2005, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on.5 II. T o qual i fyfort he di s cr et i onaryr el i ef of as y l um , an appl i cantm us tes t abl i s h t hathe is a “ re f u g e e ,” a s th a t te rm is d e f in e d in s e c tio n 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ) o f th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ). In o rd e r to m e e t th is d e f in iti o n , the a p p lica n t m u st s h o w th a t h e o r sh e is “unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r etur n t o . . . [hi s ] countr y[of na t i onal i t y ] beca us e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on, ” i d. , and has “the bur den of s how i ng thatthe per s ecut i on w as on acc ountof the appl i cant ’ s 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, ” Lukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 170 ( 3d C i r. 20 03 ). In order fort he p ers ecuti on t o q uali fyun der the st atute, “t he p ers ecutorm ust be mot i vat ed, atl eas ti n part , byone of the enumer at ed gr ounds . ” Lukw ago, 329 F. 3d at 170. T o b e e li g ible fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an ap p li ca n t m u st “d em o n str ate[ ] a

‘ cl earpr obabi l i t y ’ t hat , upon r etur n t o hi s orherhom e countr y , hi s orher‘ l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened’ 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 ar s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n .” C h e n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). In o rd e r to re c e iv e p ro tec tio n u n d e r C A T , the a p p lica n t m u st “ e sta b lish th a t itis m o re li k elythan n o t th at he o r she w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed to the p rop o sed co u n try o f re m o v a l.” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(2 ). T o rtu re is d e f in e d a s “ a n ya c t b yw h ich se v e re p a in o r s u f f e ri n g , w h e th e r p h y s ic a l o r m e n ta l, is in te n tio n a lly in f lic te d o n a p e rs o n . Id . § 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1).6

W her e, as her e, t he B I A aff i r m s a dec i s i on of the I J w i t houtopi ni on, w e r evi ew th e IJ’ s d e c isio n . C h e n v . G o n z a les , 4 3 4 F .3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). R e v iew is co n d u cted u n d er the su b stan ti al ev iden ce stan d ard , w h ich re q u ir es u s to e x am ine th e IJ’s fi ndi ngs t o det erm i ne w hethert heyar e “s uppor t ed byevi dence thata r eas onabl e mi nd w o u ld f in d a d e q u a te .” D ia v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 7

– 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ). W e mayr ever s e a f

i ndi ng of the I J onl yw hen “no r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake that fi ndi ng on t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. ” I d. at249. W i t h r es pectt o an I J ’ s fi ndi ng r egar di ng

“ th e a v a i l a b i l i t yo f

c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e , ” th e RE AL I D Ac to f 2 0 0 5 d i c t a t e s th a twe notr ever s e thatfi ndi ng unl es s “a r eas onabl e tr i erof fa cti s compel l ed t o concl ude that s u c h c o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e is u n a v a ila b le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( D ). III . A m oh m akes t w o pr i nci pal ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe s t r eaml i ni ng regul at i on s prom ulgat ed b yt he D epart m ent of Just i ce, w hich al l ow , am on g o t her things, r evi ew of an I J ’ s deci s i on bya s i ngl e mem berof the B I A and af fi r m ance w i t houtopi ni on, vi ol at e due pr oces s . See Pet . ’ s B r . at16–27; s ee e . g. , 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 1( e) . Second, A m oh cont ends t hatt he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Pet . ’ s B r . at27–34. W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , A m oh’ s due pr oces s ar gum enti s fr i vol ous . W e hel d, al m os tthr ee y ear s ago, thatthe verypr ocedur es he cont es t s do notrun afoul of due pr oces s . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . I n D i a, w e w er e fa ced w i t h t he s ame pr ocedur al7

pos tur e pr es enther e— aff i r m ance w i t houtopi ni on of an I J ’ s deci s i on bya s i ngl e mem ber of the B I A . I d. at247. G i ven that“ ‘ an al i en has no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o any admi ni s tr at i ve appe al atal l , ’ ” i d. at242 ( quot i ng A l bathani v. I N S, 318 F. 3d 365, 376 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) ) , w e had no tr oubl e conc l udi ng thatr evi ew “done byone mem berof the B I A ” w hos e rul i ng w as “notacc om pani ed bya ful l yr eas oned B I A deci s i on” w as not “cons t i tut i onal l y‘ unfai r , ’ ” i d. at243–44. I n addi t i on, farfr om havi ng t o gues s atthe rea so n ing o f th e B IA , w e d eterm ined that the IJ’s d ec isi o n p rov ided the a g en cy ’s r eas oni ng forpurpos es of ourr evi ew . I d. at240–44. A m oh’ s at t ack on the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs i s s i m i l ar l yunavai l i ng. T he I J concl uded that A m oh had nots how n t hathe w as per s ecut ed on ac countof one of the fi ve enumer at ed gr ounds pr ovi ded i n t he I N A . A ccor di ng t o t he I J , “W hat everharm m ay[have ] occu r[r ed] t o the w i fe or anyharass m ent that he r ecei ved occu rr ed b ecause h e w as a L i ber i an ci t i zen[ , ] t hathe w as nota r ebel , and theyw er e t or tur i ng, harm i ng, and r api ng an yb o d y . ” (A . R . 1 1 8 . ) T hi s concl us i on has abundants uppor ti n t he r ecor d. Forexampl e, A m oh t es t i fi ed thatw hen r ebel s i nvaded the N at i onal Y outh C ent ertheyt ook m oneyand ki l l ed the a c c o u n ta n t b u t th e yd id n o t h a rm h im . A c c o rd in g to A m o h , th e yw a n te d “ th e m o n e y .” ( A . R . 163. ) A m oh’ s w i fe w as r aped i n K un- T ow n, but , t el l i ngl y , he t es t i fi ed thatthe p e rp e tra to rs d id n o t f

in d o u t ab o u t h is a ss o c iatio n w ith S a m u e l D o e ’s g o v e rn m e n t u n til aft erthati nci dentoccurr ed. Si m i l ar l y , A m oh t es t i fi ed thatthe var i ous ot herform s ofH avi ng fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on forpurpos es of 3 e lig ib ili tyf

o r a sy lu m , A m o h w a s, b yd e f in iti o n , u n a b le to e sta b lish th e c lea r p ro b a b ili ty of harm r equi r ed t o qual i fyforw i t hhol di ng of r emoval . See C hen, 376 F. 3d at223.

8 har as s m enthe s uffe r ed happe ned t o everybody . Q ui t e s i m pl y , A m oh pr ovi ded no evi dence , m uch l es s evi dence s uffi ci entt o r ever s e the I J ’ s deci s i on, thatanyabus e he s uffe r ed w as m ot i vat ed byhi s s t atus w i t h t he governm ent , hi s w i fe’ s ethni c bac kgr ound, o ra n yo th e rg r o u n d e n u me r a t e d i n t h e I NA. Si m i l ar l y , t he I J ’ s concl us i on t hatA m oh fai l ed t o offe rcorr obor at i on r egar di ng t he all eg ed p erse cu ti o n su ff ere d b yh is fam il yis sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . T h e IJ i dent i fi ed numer ous ar eas w her e corr obor at i ng evi dence w oul d be ava i l abl e, s uch as document s r egar di ng t he l i ves and dea t hs of A m oh’ s m other , br other , father - i n- l aw , and w i fe’ s uncl e. I n addi t i on, t he I J corr ect l ynot ed thatA m oh has an open l i ne of comm uni cat i on w i t h hi s w i fe i n G hana a nd thatther e w as no r eas onabl e expl anat i on for A m o h ’s f

a ilu re to p ro v id e s u c h e v id e n c e . Fi nal l y , t he I J ’ s concl us i ons t hatA m oh has nots how n a w el l - founded f earof f u tu re p e rse c u tio n o r th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t h e w ill b e to rtu re d u p o n h is re tu rn to L i ber i a ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 3 I V. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.