I M G- 2 7 8 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 o. 09- 3766

___________ OV I AN I E ALTI NE; LOC HA RT PROPH ETE, P eti ti o n ers

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 os . A 79 508 960, A 96 277 754 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy

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

A ugus t18, 2010 B e f o re : 

### MC KE E , 

### C h ief

Ju d g e, H A R D I M A N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed : Sept ember13, 2010)

______ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM L ochartPr ophet e and O vi ani e A l t i ne, hus band and w i fe, pet i t i on forr evi ew of an o rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” o r “ B o a rd ” ), w h ich d ism iss e d th e ir appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal r emoval or der s . W e w i l l di s m i s s the

### 2

j oi ntpet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.

I . A l t i ne and Pr ophet e ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of H ai t i w ho arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 and 2002 r es pect i vel y . T he G overnm entchar ged both w i th bei ng i nadmi s s i bl e and i s s ued them not i ces t o appea r . B oth pet i t i oner s fi l ed t i m el yappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and forpr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) . T he appl i cat i ons w er e cons ol i dat ed. I n t es t i m ony befor e the I J , A l t i ne, the l ead pe t i t i oner , r ecount ed a June 2001 i nci dentdur i ng w hi ch thr ee men br oke i nt o the pol i t i cal offi ce bui l di ng s he w as cl eani ng, as ked forhercous i n, w ho w as a magi s tr at e and w ho had bee n a ca ndi dat e form ay or . T he men br andi s hed a g u n a n d ra p e d h e r. Pr ophet e t es t i fi ed thati n D ece m ber2001 tw o m en for ced hi m i nt o a vehi cl e and t ook hi m t o a r oom , beathi m w i th a rubberbat on, and ki cked hi m i n the hea d. Pr ophet e, a Fr ench pr ofes s or , s t at ed thatthe men accus ed hi m of bei ng an “i nt el l ectual gi vi ng p rob lem s in [ H ait i] , ” a n d h e f ea red return ing to w o rk b ec au se h e k n ew o f o ther p rof esso rs w ho had bee n beat en and ki l l ed. A . R . at251. H e l eftforthe U ni t ed St at es one y earaft er the att ack. Pr ophet e t es t i fi ed thathe fe ar ed r eturni ng t o H ai t i due t o the uns t abl e pol i t i cal s i tu a t i o n i n th e c o u n try. Th e I J , f i n d i n g th e t e s t i mo n yo f

b o th p e t i t i o n e r s c r e d i b l e , d e n i e d Al t i n e ’ s c l a i ms

### 3

becaus e s he di d nots how thatm en w ho r aped he rw er e i ndi vi dual s the governm entof H ai t i w as unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol orthatthe r ape w as cal cul at ed t o per s ecut e her o n a c c o u n t o f

a p ro tec ted g ro u n d . A .R . at 9 0 . T h e IJ a lso f o u n d th a t sh e d id n o t ex p lain w hys he fe ar ed r eturni ng t o H ai t i , and s he thus fai l ed t o s how a w el l - founded f earof f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S im ilarly , the IJ f

o u n d th a t w h ile P ro p h e te’ s te stim o n yw a s c re d ib le, h e f a iled to i dent i fyhi s per s ecut or s and coul d notpr ove thattheyw er e governm entagent s orfor ces th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l. F u rth e r, ac c o rd in g to th e IJ, P ro p h e te f a iled to p re se n t ev id e n c e th a t p ro f e ss o rs in H a iti a re a so c ial g ro u p su b jec t to per s ecut i on. A s i n hi s w i fe’ s cas e, the I J found thatPr ophet e’ s fea rof gene r al la w le s s n e s s in H a iti w a s n o t a v a lid b a s is f o r a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . Fi n a l l y , th e I J f

o u n d th a tn e i th e rp e t i t i o n e rwas e l i g i b l e f o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T. Pet i t i oner s appea l ed t o the B I A , w hi ch af fi rm ed the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs and di s m i s s ed the a p p e a l . T h e p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a r emoval or derpur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252, but w e may“r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi f the al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies avail able t o the al i en as of ri gh t. . . . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)( 1). A peti t i on er m ust

“ ra ise a n d e x h a u st h is o r h e r re m e d ies a s to e a c h c laim o r g ro u n d f o r re lief if h e o r sh e is t o pr es erve the r i ghtof j udi ci al r evi ew of thatcl ai m . ” A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330

### 4

F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

A l t i ne and Pr ophet e r ai s e onl yone i s s ue i n thei rbr i ef he r e: “w hetherthe [r ecor d] ev iden ce o f c o u n tryco n d it ion s in H ait i fo r 20 0 1 , the o n lyy ea r i n w h ich th e p eti ti o n ers w er e per s ecut ed, w as s o defi ci enti n cont entthatthe ‘ fi ndi ngs of fa ct ’ on w hi ch the d e n ials a re b a se d lac k su b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd a s a w h o le, a n d a m o u n t to un l aw ful agencyact i on that m ustbe reversed and rem and ed to afford p et i t i on ers a p ro c e e d in g p ro v id in g f

u n d a m e n ta l p ro c e d u ra l f a irn e s s .” P e titio n e rs ’ B ri e f a t 2 -3 . P e t i t i o n e r s a r g u e th a tth e I J s h o u l d h a v e i n tr o d u c e d th e S t a t e D e p a r tm e n t ’ s C o u n try R e p o rt o n H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tice s f o r H a iti f o r th e y e a r 2 0 0 1 , b e c a u se th e o n lyre p o rt in the r ecor d des cr i bi ng 2001 condi t i ons i n H ai t i i s a 2004 St at e D epartm ent“B ackgr ound N o te ” w h ic h is n o t d e ta ile d e n o u g h to g iv e a p ro p e r c o n te x t f o r P e titio n e rs ’ c la im s . P e tit io n e rs s tate th a t th e ye x h a u ste d a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies f o r th is c laim b e c a u se th e ir not i ce of appea l t o the B oar d s t at es thatthe I J ’ s deni al of as y l um r el i ef “ r epr es ent s an i m pr operappl i cat i on of contr ol l i ng l egal pr i nci pal s [s i c] . ” A . R . 43. W e agr ee w i th the G overnm entthatnothi ng i n Pet i t i oner s ’ not i ce of appea l or br i ef t o the B oar d al ert s the B oar d t o a cl ai m thatthe r ecor d w as i nadequa t e orthatthe m att erneede d t o be r emanded forcons i der at i on of the 2001 C ountryR eportoranyother evi dence . I ns t ead, Pet i t i oner s ar gued thatthe I J err ed i n deny i ng r el i ef on the bas i s of evi dence al r eadyi n the r ecor d. B ecaus e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe onl yi s s ue

### 5

r a i s e d b yP e t i t i o n e r s , we mu s td i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.