2010 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 2-4-2010 

# O duche-N wakai he 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 . 08-2736

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_2010

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 2010 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 " O duche-N

wakai he v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1938. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1938NOT 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 . 08- 2736 and 08- 4285 E Z E A D IG O C H IN E D U O D U C H E -N W A K A IH E , 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

P ET I TI ON FOR RE VI EW OF AN ORDER O F TH E B O A RD O F I M M I G RA TI O N A PPEA LS

( A gencyN o. A 08- 810- 588) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February4, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge E zea di go C hi nedu O duche- N w akai he ( “O duche” ) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of ( 1) the J une 4, 2008 or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( the “BIA ”) , vaca t i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) or dergr ant i ng defe rr al of r emoval pur s uantt o the C onvent i onT h e re co rd c it ati o n s in this ord er ref er to the C erti fied A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd 1 (“ C A R ” ). O duche w as havi ng a s exual r el at i ons hi p w i th hi s ei ght een- y ear - ol d gi r l fr i end w hen, 2 ats om e poi nt , he bec ame se xual l yi nvol ved w i th herm otheras w el l . T hi s tr i angl e w as uns us t ai nabl e, and the fourth degr ee r ape c har ge forpenetr at i on w i thoutcons entr es ul t ed fr om the mot her ’ s al l egat i ons aboutO duche’ s al l egedl ynoncons ens ual act i vi t i es w i th her d a u g h ter . A s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f d e tails, th is w a s n o t O d u c h e ’s f irst e n c o u n ter w ith D e la w a re ’s c ri m in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . H e ci t ed hi s adher ence t o C hr i s t i an pr i nci pl es , w hi ch w oul d r es ul ti n hi s s uffe r i ng 3 h a rm in N ig e ri a ; h is p o litic a l o p in io n s ; a n d h is m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p . -2- A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , and ( 2) the B I A ’ s O ct ober16, 2008 or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on to re o p e n h is re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s to p e rm it h im to su b m it ev id e n c e o f th e S tate D epart m ent ’ s 2007 C ount r yR eport s forN i ger i a ( “2007 C ountryR eport s ”) . W e w i l l deny th e p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w . BA CKGROUND 1 O duche, a nat i ve of N i ger i a, w as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es on M ar ch 27, 2003, w ith th e sta tu s o f

a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t alie n . O n Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , h e p led g u iltyto r a pe i n the fo urth d e gr e e i n KentCounty , D e l a w a r e . O n Se pt e mber11 , 20 07 , the U . S. 2 D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tycomm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m byfi l i ng a N o ti ce to A p p ea r. A t a he aring o n D ec em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , the IJ f o u n d that O d u ch e’s “convi ct i on forr ape i n t he fourth i n D el aw ar e i s r ape [ sic ] offense requir i ng that y ou l ose y ourperm anentr es i dencyi n t he U ni t ed St at es and r equi r es y ourdeport at i on. ” ( C A R at 173. ) O n J anuary7, 2008, O duche f i l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e mov a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rCA T. (I d. a t 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 .) 3(C A R at 26 6 . )

O d u ch e w as su b

ject t o rem o v al pu rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A ). 4 -3- O n Jan u ary3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , the IJ o rde red that O d u ch e b e re m o v ed to N igeria; h o w ev er, 4 a lth o u g h O d u c h e ’s c rim in a l co n v ictio n f o r ra p e in th e f

o u rth d e g re e re n d e re d h im i nel i gi bl e foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , the I J gr ant ed hi m defe rr al of r emoval underA r t i cl e I I I of C A T . H e expl ai ned thatO duche w as cr edi bl e and thathi s fea rof r el i gi ous per s ecut i on w as cr edi bl e, but“bec aus e r es pondenti s s t atut or i l ypr ecl uded fr om e sta b lish in g p a st p e rse c u tio n . . . b e c a u se o f h is a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n yc o n v ictio n , the C o u rt is notperm i t t ed t o cons i derthatas pectof the cl ai m . ” (Id . at14 7. ) Th us, the “p ri m aryt hrust o f re sp o n d e n t’s c laim . . . w o u ld b e h is im m e d iate a rre st a n d d e ten tio n a n d jailin g in N i ger i a upon hi s arr i val as a cr i m i nal deport ee. ” (I d. ) T he I J m ade “ an admi ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ng of fa ct ” thatthi s pr act i ce, carr i ed outpur s uantt o a di r ect i ve know n as “D ecr ee 3 3 ,” w a s s till i n e f

f e c t. (I d. a t 1 5 0 .) H e e x p lain e d th a t ex p e rts in o th e r c a se s re latin g to N i ger i a had a t t es t ed t o t he for ce of D ecr ee 33 a nd, as a r es ul t , t ook “admi ni s tr at i ve n o tic e ” th a t O d u c h e w o u ld b e d e ta in e d u p o n re tu rn in g to N ig e ri a . (I d. at 14 8 , 1 5 3 . ) T he I J then turned t o O duche’ s ar gum entthat , once i n pr i s on, he w oul d be to rtu re d . A c k n o w led g in g th a t su b sta n d a rd p riso n c o n d iti o n s d o n o t, ge n e ra lly , co n stitu te to rtu re w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 (a ) a n d th a t im m ig ra tio n c o u rts s h o u ld a v o id “ strin g in g to g e th e r a se rie s o f su p p o sitio n s” to sh o w th a t to rtu re is th e lik e lyre su lt, the I J nonethel es s concl uded thatthe r el evantC ountryR eport s forN i ger i a r evea l ed aSee 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 17 ( “A n al i en w ho: has been or der ed r emoved; has been f ound 5 under§ 1208. 16( c) ( 3) t o be ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e; an d is subject t o the p rov isi o n s fo r m an d atoryd en ial o f w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er § 1208. 16( d) ( 2) or( d) ( 3) , s hal l be gr ant ed def err al of r emoval t o the countryw her e he or sh e is m o re li k elythan n o t t o b e torture d . ”). T h e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tr yR e p o rt s w e re n o t is s u e d u n til M a rc h 6 , 2 0 0 8 . 6 -4- “hi gh i nci dence r at e of i m puni tyof pol i ce of fi cer s us i ng exce s s i ve and de adl yfor ce on per s ons and ki l l i ng per s ons i n cus t ody . ” (I d. a t 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 .) T h u s, th e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t it w as m or e l i kel ythan notthat , once he w as i nevi t abl ydet ai ned, O duche w oul d be t or tur ed, a n d d e f e rr e d h i s r e mov a l u n d e rCA T. 5 T he governm entappea l ed. O n J une 4, 2008, the B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng defe r r al of r emoval . T he B I A di d notagr ee thatO duche w oul d be det ai ned underD ecr ee 33, and r ej ect ed the not i on that“the cont i nued appl i cat i on orcont i nued enfor cementof D ecr ee 33 i n N i ger i a i s a mat t erthati s s ubj ectt o admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce. ” (I d. at2-3. ) O du che h ad u rged t he B IA t o take no t i ce of the recent 2007 C ou ntryR epo rt s, det ai l i ng the horr or s as s oci at ed w i th the N i ger i an pr i s on s y s t em, butthe B I A concl uded th a t d e s p ite th e “ e v id e n c e o f h a rs h a n d lif

e -t h re a te n in g p ri s o n c o n d itio n s in N ig e ri a ,” O d u c h e ’s c a se w a s b a se d o n sp e c u latio n ra th e r th a n “ a d e q u a te e v id e n c e ” th a t he “ m ore l i kel y than not ” w o u ld b e to rt u re d u p o n h is re tu rn . (I d. at 3.) O n A ugus t29, 2008, O duche f i l ed a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the B I A , ar gui ng that th e B IA h a d f

a iled to tak e n o tice o f

th e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rts, w h ich h e c laim e d w o u ld have va l i dat ed hi s fea r s of t or tur e w i thi n pr i s on. O n O ct ober16, 2008, the B I A deni ed 6-5-

the mot i on t o r eopen, fi ndi ng thatthe 2007 C ountryR eport s di d notr es ol ve the “c hai n of as s um pt i ons thatw er e pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned t o have be en made, ” i ncl udi ng w hetherhe w o u ld e v e n b e d e ta in e d in N ig e ri a , m u c h le s s b e to rt u re d d u ri n g th a t d e te n tio n . (P e t. B r., E x. B . ) I tal s o found thatO duche f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h “thatthe r es ul ti n thi s cas e w oul d be l i kel yt o change i f the pr ocee di ngs w er e r eopene d. ” (I d. ) Pur s uantt o ouror derof O ct ober24, 2008, O duche’ s tw o pet i t i ons have be en co n so li d ated . In h is fir st pe ti ti o n , n o w h is fir st cl aim , O d u ch e se ek s rev iew o f th e B IA ’s Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r d ire c tin g th a t h e b e re m o v e d to N ig e ria a n d v a c a tin g th e IJ’ s d e f e rra l of r emoval . H i s s econd c l ai m s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s O ct ober16, 2008 or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs t o perm i thi m t o pl ace i nt o evi dence the 2007 C ountryR eport s . A s thator derm akes cl ear , how ever , the B I A had cons i der ed the co n tention s o f th e 2 0 0 7 R ep o rt s. (P et. B r. , E x h . B . ) J UR I S DI CT I ON A l though 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) l i m i t s the fe der al court s ’ j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew f in a l d e c is io n s o rd e ri n g th e re m o v a l o f a lie n s w h o c o m m it a g g ra v a te d f e lo n ie s , § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) ma k e s c l e a rth a tc o u r t s r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w “ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew . . . . ” See M udr i c v. A t t ’

y G en. , 469 F .3 d 9 4 , 9 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Si ngh v. G onz al es , 432 F. 3d 533, 537 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . O duche expl ai ns the var i ous i s s ues athand, w hi ch i ncl ude w hetherthe I J err ed i n t aki ng admi ni s tr at i ve not i ce of D ecr ee 33, w hetherthe B I A m i s appl i ed the C A T s t andar d,F o r e x a m p le, w ith re sp e c t to O d u c h e ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e B IA im p e rm iss ib ly 7 appl i ed the C A T s t andar d fordefe r r al , w hi ch the governm entchar act er i zes as “atodds wi th th e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l ’ s f r a me wo r k f

o ra n a l y z i n g CA T c l a i ms , ” Go v ’ tBr . a t2 7 , we have j ur i s di ct i on t o t he ext entthatthi s i s s ue “pr es ent [s ] ques t i ons of l aw , orof the appl i cat i on of l aw t o undi s put ed fa ct . ” Si ngh , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 5 3 7 -3 8 ; Kam ar a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 2 0 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). -6- w h e th e r th e B IA a d e q u a telye x p lain e d its d e c isio n to v a c a te th e IJ’ s d e f e rra l o f re m o v a l, and w hetherthe B I A i m perm i s s i bl yengage d i n de novo fac tfi ndi ng. T he thrus tof the g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t i s tha t bec au se th ese claim s – in the g o v ern m en t’ s v iew – are “w i thoutm er i t. . . theydo notpr es entm er i t or i ous l egal orcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ” and, thus , cannotbe r evi ew ed. ( G ov’ tB r . at27. ) W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatO duche ha s r ai s ed at l eas ts om e ques t i ons of l aw , and thatw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o pr ocee d. 7 DI S CU S S I ON A l though O duche r ai s es var i ous i s s ues i n thi s appea l , he ul t i m at el ys eeks defe r r al of r emoval on t he gr ound t hathe w i l lm or e l i kel y than notb e to rtu re d o n c e in p riso n in N i ger i a. W e w i l l as s um e ar guendo th a t O d u c h e w o u ld b e im p riso n e d u p o n h is re tu rn to Ni g e r i a a n d f

o c u s o n h i s t o r tu r e c l a i m. W e re v iew th e B IA ’s d e c isio n s to v a c a te th e IJ’ s d e f e rra l ru lin g a n d re f

u sa l to reo p en the c ase u n d er the su b stan ti al ev iden ce stan d ard an d w il l up h o ld the B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n s “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls i t . ” Sher i f f v. A t t ’ y G en. , 587 F. 3d 584, 588- 89 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng A bdi l l e v. A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . T o the ext entw e cons i derques t i ons of-7-

l aw and the ap pli cat i on of law t o fac t s, ou r r eview i s de novo. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); Y us upov v. A t t ’

y G en . , 5 1 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). I n P i er r e v. A t t or ney G ener alof the U ni t ed Stat es , we s e to u tth e p u rp o s e s o f CA T and the D epart m entof J us t i ce’ s r ol e i n “pr om ul gat [i ng] r egul at i ons s ett i ng for th the pr ocedur es byw hi ch i ndi vi dual s coul d s eek r el i ef unde rthe C A T . ” 528 F. 3d 180, 186 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( en banc ). T h o se re g u latio n s m a k e c lea r th a t d e f e rra l o f re m o v a l is m and at oryw here the p et i t i on er dem on strat es that i ti s m or e l i kel y than not , 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 7 (a ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ), th a t h e w ill b e su b jec ted to a n a c t “s p e c if

ica llyin ten d e d to i n f l i c ts e v e r e p h y s i c a l o rme n t a l p a i n o rs u f f e r i n g , ” 8 C. F . R. § 2 0 8 . 1 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) . As we expl ai ned: [F] oran ac tt o cons t i tut e t or tur e, ther e mustbe a s how i ng thatthe ac t orhad the i nt entt o comm i tthe ac tas w el l as the i nt entt o achi eve the cons equenc es of the ac t . Speci fi c i nt entr equi r es nots i m pl ythe gene r al i nt entt o acc om pl i s h an ac tw i th no part i cul arend i n m i nd, butthe addi t i onal del i ber at e and c ons ci ous purpos e of a ccompl i s hi ng a s peci fi c and p ro h ib ited re su lt. 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 9 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). W e have appl i ed thi s s t andar d i n the cont extof det ent i on fac i l i t i es on num er ous occa s i ons i n t he pas t . I n A ugus t e v. R i dge , forexampl e, w her e the pet i t i onercompl ai ned of the pr i s on condi t i ons i n H ai t i , w e found thatthe B I A di d noterri n i t s fi ndi ng that H a iti a n o f

f icia ls la c k e d th e sp e c if

ic in ten t to to rtu re h im b e c a u se th e d e p lo ra b le condi t i ons r es ul t ed fr om “H ai t i ’ s economi c and s oci al i l l s ” r atherthan an “ i nt entt o i nfl i ct s ever e pai n and s uffe r i ng on det ai nees . ” 395 F. 3d 123, 153 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n P i erre , we-8-

a f f irm e d th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f th e p e tit io n f

o r C A T re lief

w h e re p e tit io n e r c laim e d th a t h is m edi cal pr obl ems w oul d be negl ect ed bypr i s on offi ci al s , r es ul t i ng i n hi s death. 528 F. 3d at182- 83. W e hel d t hatthe pet i t i onerw as unabl e t o s how that“byi m pr i s oni ng hi m , t he H ai t i an author i t i es have the s peci fi c i nt entt o t or tur e hi m . ” I d. at183. I n I

n Re J - E- , t he p eti ti o n er testi fied that u p o n h is r eturn to H ait i, h e w o u ld b e jail ed an d tortu red . In s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , he s ubm i t t ed C ountryR eport s expl ai ni ng thatpol i ce mi s tr eatm entby m ea n s o f b ea ti n g s w ith sti ck s an d b elt s, b u rnin g w ith ciga rett es, ch o k ing , an d sev ere b o x in g o f

th e e a rs , w a s “ p e rv a s iv e in a ll p a rt s o f th e c o u n tr y .” 2 3 I & N D e c . 2 9 1 a t 3 0 1 . F in d in g th a t th e re c o rd c o n tain e d o n ly“ iso late d in sta n c e s o f m istre a tm e n t . . . tha t rise to the level of tor ture, ” t he B IA con cl ud ed thatthe ev i den ce w as “i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t” th a t th e p e titio n e r w o u ld b e to rt u re d if re m o v e d to H a iti. Id . a t 3 0 1 -0 3 . In p a rticu lar , the B IA h e ld th a t “[ s]p e c if ic g ro u n d s m u st e x ist th a t in d ica te the i ndi vi dual w oul d be per s onal l yatr i s k. ” I d. at303. O d u c h e a rg u e s th a t th e re is e v id e n c e o f ro u tin e , w id e sp re a d p riso n e r a b u se in Ni g e r i a a n d , th u s , th a th i s c a s e i s d i f f e r e n tf r o m A u g u ste and P i erre , w h ere the h arm i nfl i ct ed on the i m pr i s oned w as uni nt ent i onal and the r es ul tof ec onom i c w oes . H e ci t es the 2007 C ount r yR eport s , w hi ch s t at e thatoffi cer s r egul ar l ybeatdet ai nees and convi ct ed pr i s oner s . T he C ount r yR eport s al s o not e thatw hen a U ni t ed N at i ons Speci al R appor t eur on T or tur e w as i nvi t ed bythe N i ger i an governm ent“t o as s es s the s i tuat i on . . . , the r apport eurr eport ed thatt or tur e w as endemi c i n l aw enfor cementoper at i ons , i ncl udi ng-9-

pol i ce c us t ody. . . [and that ] the met hods of t or tur e i ncl uded fl oggi ng w i th w hi ps ; beat i ng w i th bat ons and machet es ; s hoot i ng a s us pecti n the foot. . . s us pens i on fr om the ce i l i ng; an d d en y ing fo o d , w ater, an d m ed ical trea tm en t. ” (P et. B r. , E x . D . ) T he ac t s ci t ed i n t he 2007 C ountryR eport s ar e ce r t ai nl yabhorr ent . A s evi dence th a t he w ill m o re like ly th a n n o t f a ll v ictim to th e se a b u se s, h o w e v e r, O d u c h e m e re ly poi nt s t o the r apport eur ’ s j udgm entthattheyar e “e ndemi c” t o N i ger i an pr i s ons and fi ndi ngs thatthey“had be come r out i ne. ” ( Pet . 08- 2736 B r . at29. ) I n i t s or dervaca t i ng the def err al of r emoval , the B I A found thatO duche’ s cas e w as “bas ed on a c hai n of a ss u m p tio n s a n d a f

e a r o f w h a t m ig h t h a p p e n , rath e r th a n a d e q u a te e v id e n c e th a t m e e ts his bu rden of

dem on strat i ng that i ti s m or e l i kel y than notth a t h e w ill b e su b jec ted to tortu re . . . . ” (C A R at 3.) In it s o rde r de n y ing O d u ch e’s m o ti o n to reo p en , the B IA expl ai ned thathad i tcons i der ed the 2007 C ountryR eport s , butthatthe R eport s di d not e v e n “ a d d re ss th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e re sp o n d e n t w o u ld b e a rre ste d a n d d e tain e d u p o n h is arr i val i n N i ger i a. ” ( Pet . B r . , E x. B . ) T he B I A added that“s uch r eportdoes not s uffi ci ent l ym eetthe r es pondent ’ s bur den of de m ons tr at i ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not thathe w i l l be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e . . . i f he i s r eturned t o N i ger i a. ” (I d. ) T he I J conce ded thatthi s w as a cl os e ca s e, fi ndi ng, on the one ha nd, that“w e have no evi dence of how r es pondentw oul d be tr eat ed . . . once he i s det ai ned, ” butrul i ng, on the otherhand, thatO duche methi s bur den bec aus e of the “hi gh i nci dence r at e of im p u n ity” o f

o f f ic ia ls to w a rd th o s e in c u s to d y . (C A R a t 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 -5 3 .) H o w e v e r, a-10-

pet i t i onerm us ts how thatthe pr os pect i ve t or tur er“w i l l have the purpos e of i nfl i ct i ng s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng bypl aci ng hi m i n det ent i on upon hi s r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es . ” P i erre , 528 F. 3d at190. I n l i ghtof the l ack of evi dence i n thi s r ecor d addr es s i ng w hetheri ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatO duche w oul d fal l vi ct i m t o i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed to rtu re w h ile in c a rc e ra ted in a N ig e ria n p riso n , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t w e a re c o m p e lled to re a c h a c o n c lu s io n c o n tr a ry to th a t r e a c h e d b yth e B IA . CO NC L US I ON T h e p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .