NOT PRECEDENTI AL

UNITED STAT ES C OU RT OF A PPEALS

FOR THE THI RD CI RCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 0 1 5

_____ _____

E L I J A H H A R M O N

,

P e t i t i o n e r

v.

A T T O R N E Y G E N E R

A L U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

_____________

________________

_______

On Petition f

or Rev iew of a n Order of the

Board of Imm igr ation App ea ls

(Age ncy No. A 0 9 4

- 5 7 0

- 0 3 3 )

Immigration Judge: Kuyomars G olparvar

____ ______ ___ __ __________

___________

Submitted Pursuan t to Third Circuit LAR 34.1( a)

A u g u s t 4

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R

A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, C ircuit Jud ges

(Opinion fil ed : February 2, 2021 )

_ __________

OPINION *

________

__ _

PER CURIA M

* T his disp osition is not an opi nio n o f the ful l C ourt and p ursu ant to I .O. P. 5.7 do es not

c onstitute binding prec edent.2

E l i j a h H a r m o n , proceed i ng p ro se

, p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d

o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( “ B I A ” ) d i s m i s s i n g h i s a p p e a l o f a d e c i s i o n o f a n I m m i g r a t i o n

J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) o r d e r i n g h i s r e m o v a l a n d d e n y i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m r e m o v a l

.

F or the re asons th at fol low, we wi ll d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w

.

H a r m o n is a native and cit izen of L i b e r i a

. He was ad mitted to the Un ited States in

2004 as a r efugee

. H a r m o n ’ s f a t h e r

, w h o w a s a d m i t t e d a s a r e f u g e e

, f i l e d a d e r i v a t i v e

p e t i t i o n o n h i s b e h a l f

. T he Department of Homeland Security i s s u e d a n o t i c e t o a p p e a r i n

J u n e 2 0 1 8 a l l e g i n g t h a t Harmon was convicted in J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 i n Pennsyl van ia state

court of the manufactu re, deliv ery, or p ossession with inten t to manuf actur e o r d eli ve r

heroin in violation of 35 Pa. Stat

. § 780

- 113 (a)(30)

. D H S charg ed Har mon with b eing

subject to r emov al because he was convicted of a n o f f e n s e r e l a t i n g t o t h e i l l i c i t

t r a f f i c k i n g o f a c o n t r o l l e d s ub s t a n c e

, a n aggravated f elony

. S e e 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B )

, 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i i )

. The I J fo und t h a t Harmon h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f

t h e a l l e g e d o f

f e n s e a n d t h a t h e i s remov able a s c h a r g e d

.

Ha rmon

, p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, applied for asylum

, withholdin g of remo val, and reli ef

under the C onvention Against Tortur e

. A t h i s h e a r i n g

, H a r m o n

, w h o w a s b o r n i n 1 9 9 0

,

s t a t e d t h a t he wa s abducted i n 1 9 9 9 o r 2 0 0 0 b y a g r o u p n a m e d L a w R e b e l and forced to

be a soldi e r d

u r i n g t h e c i v i l w a r i n L i b e r i a

. H a r m o n said t hat he wa s beaten and tortured

b e c a u s e he would not kill other p eople

, a n d t h a t h e wa s reu nited with his m o t h e r in 2003

after another group captur ed an d h e l p e d h i m

. Harmon t h e n lived in Li beria a n d w e n t t o3

s c h o o l

. H e c a m e to the United States i n 2 0 0 4 t o l i v e w i t h h i s f a t h e r

, w h o h a d b e e n

a d m i t t e d i n 2 0 0 0

. A l t h o u g h t he civil war ha d ended

, Ha rmo n state d that there i s still

cri minal activit y i n L i b e r i a

, t h a t h e f e a r s rebel leaders w h o a r e n ow in the government

,

and t h a t t h e leader o f L a w R e b e l i s in Liberi a.

On c ross

- e xamination, the Government n o t e d t h a t H a r m o n ’ s a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d t h a t

h e w a s f o r c e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r a i d s a n d p r o t e c t h o u s e s a n d o f f i c e s f o r t h e r e b e l g r o u

p

.

H a r m o n s a i d t h a t h e o n l y c a r r i e d f o o d a n d s u

p p l i e s t h a t o t h e r s h a d t a k e n

. T h e

G o v e r n m e n t a l s o pro duced documents that his fa ther had submitted w hen he app l ied for

der ivative refug ee status on Harmon ’ s behalf , inclu ding a bapti smal cert ificate an d school

record issue d o n d a t e s d

u r i n g t h e t i m e p e r i o d i n w h i c h Harmon said that he was a s oldi er

,

a n d a f o r m r e f l e c t i n g t h a t H a r m o n h a d l i v e d i n G u i n e a f r o m 1 9 9 5 t o 2 0 0 0

. H a r m o n s a i d

t h a t h e h a d f

o r g o t t e n t h a t h e h a d l i v e d i n G u i n e a

.

Harmon ’ s father a l s o testified

. H e s a i d t h a t he

, h i s w i f e

, a n d H a r m o n l i v e d

t o g e t h e r i n a t o w n n e a r t h e G u i n e a b o r d e r

, t h a t t h e y w e r e s e p a r a t e d d u r i n g a n a t t a c k i n

2 0 0 0

, t h a t h e h a d f

l e d t o Guinea

, a n d t h a t h i s w i f e a n d H a r m o n f

l e d a n d l i v e d i n L i b e r i a

.

H a r m o n ’ s f

a t h e r a l s o s a i d t h a t h e m arried his wife in Guinea i n 2 0 0 0 and that she had l eft

Harmon for seve r al months with a family member in Liberia

. H a r m o n ’ s f a t h e r c a m e t o

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 0 a n d h i s w i f e s e n t h i m t h e b a p t i s m a l c e r t i f i c a t e a n d

s c h o o l r e c o r d

. H e s a i d t h a t H a r m o n a n d h i s w i f e w e r e l i v i n g t o g e t h e r i n L i b e r i a a f t e r h e

a r r i v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

, t h a t h e n e v e r l i v e d w i t h H a r m o n i n G u i n e a

, a n d t h a t h e did4

not know that rebel s had capt ured H a r m o n

.

The IJ found Har mon not credible . He e x p l a i n e d t h a t Harmon ’ s a f f i d a v i t and

testimony w e r e inconsistent a s t o his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the rebel gr oup ’ s activities a n d t h a t

t h e r e w a s conflicting evidenc e as to whether he had lived in Guinea . The IJ found

Harmon ’ s father credible and n o t ed th at h e did not know about H a r m o n ’ s i n v o l v e m e n t

w i t h L a w R e b e l and had said t hat H armon liv ed with his mot he r

. The IJ also sta ted that

the baptismal certificate and s chool record contra dicted Harmon ’ s te sti mony.

Th e IJ gave Ha rmon ’ s t estimony almo st no w eight in considering his appl ica tion

fo r deferral of removal under the CAT. 1 T h e I J review ed the count ry report and found

t h a t t h e circumsta nces in Liberia

, w h i c h i n c l u d e d t r a n s i t i o n s i n p o w e r

, h a d c h a n g e d

s i g n i f i c a n t l y since 2 004. Applying Myrie v. Att ’ y Gen. , 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017), th e

IJ f o u n d that noth ing is likely to happen to Harmo n if he is r emo ved. T he IJ found that

he h a d not b e e n a child soldier

, and that even if he h a d b e e n

, the war i s over and there i s

no indication th at he would be harmed f o r t h a t r e a s o n . The IJ stated that he did not find

that Har mon wa s ha rmed in t he past and n o t e d t hat H armo n h a d said that he ha d l ive d in

Liberia for over a year after he was a l l e g e d l y res cued

. The IJ also s t a t e d that wh at is

likely to happe n to H armon w o u l d n o t amount to t h e l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n o f torture. The I J

1 The IJ found th a t Har mo n was convic t ed of a “ particular ly seri ous crime ” and is thus

inelig i ble for withholding of remova l

. The IJ a lso de nied asylum on thi s basis and

be cause Harmon comm itted an aggra va t ed felony

. Harmon do es not dispute that he was

conv i cted of a particu la rly serio us crime

, and the se rulings are not at issue.5

e x p l a i n e d that h e would have a tr ans it ion b ut t hat h e wo ul d acclima te a n d t h e r e w a s n o

i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t o r t h e f o r m e r l e a d e r o f t h e r e b e l g r o u p w o u l d h a r m h i m

.

Th e IJ ru led t hat he cou ld not fin d that it is more likely than not that Harmon would be

tor tured.

On ap peal, the BIA u

pheld t h e IJ ’ s ruling s that Harmon was convicted of an

aggrava ted felony and that h e did not establish elig ibility for d e f e r r a l o f r e m o v a l

. T h e

BIA fo und no clear error in the IJ ’ s adverse credibili ty f i n d i n g i n l i g h t o f t h e

i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e r e c o r d o r i n t h e f i n d i n g t h a t H a r m o n w o u l d n o t b e t o r t u r e d

. T h e

B I A a l s o n o t e d that the r e i s eviden ce of the political influ ence of former warlo rds

, b u t

t h a t t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t s u p p o r t a c l a i m t h a t f

o r m e r child so ldiers are tortured.

H a r m o n f i l ed a pro se pe tition fo r review

. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 8

U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( a )

. B e c a u s e H a r m o n i s r e m o v a b l e f o r h a v i n g c o m m i t t e d a n a g g r a v a t e d

f e l o n y

, o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d l e g a l c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e f i n a l o r d e r

o f r e m o v a l

. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C )

, ( D ) ; N a s r a l l a h v

. B a r r

, - - U

. S

. - - , 1 4 0 S

. C t

. 1 6 8 3

,

1 6 8 7

– 8 8 ( 2 0 2 0 )

. W e a l s o h a v e 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 t u t i o n a l

, l e g a l

, a n d f a c t u a l

c h a l l e n g e s t o a n o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l i e f u n d e r t h e C A T

. N a s r a l l a h

, 1 4 0 S

. C t

. a t 1 6 8 8

. W e

r e v i e w H a r m o n ’ s c o n s t i t

u t i o n a l a n d l e g a l c h a l l e n g e s d e n o v o

, M y r i e

, 8 5 5 F

. 3 d a t 5 1 5

,

a n d h i s f a c t u a l c h a l l e n g e s f

o r s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

. N a s r a l l a h

, 1 4 0 S

. C t

. a t 1 6 9 2

. 2

2 Before Nasrallah wa s decided , the Government mov ed to di smiss Ha rmon ’ s petition for

review for lack of juris diction . In li ght o f the Supr eme Court ’ s decision and the legal

issue discussed b elow, the mot i on to dism iss is d e nied.6

H a r m o n a ppears to challenge the l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n tha t his o f f e n s e is an

a ggr avated felony

. S e e B r i e f a t 6

. A st ate drug conviction constitutes an aggravate d

felony if “ it woul d be punishable as a felony under the federal Cont rolled Substa nces Act

.

. . . ” E v anson v. At t’y Gen. , 550 F.3 d 284, 288 ( 3d Cir. 2 008). The BIA found the

st at ute of convi ction

, 35 Pa. Stat

. § 780

- 113(a)(30)

, w h i c h prohibits “ the manu facture,

deliver y, o r pos session with i nte nt to manufacture or deliver, a controll ed s ub s t a n c e

, ”

ana l ogous to 21 U.S .C. § 841(a)(1)

, whic h m akes it u n l a w f u l to “ manufacture, distribute,

or di spens e , o r pos se ss with intent to ma nufacture , distribute, or di spense, a contr olled

substance. ” T he BIA a pp lied the modified categorical approac h

, found that the

c ontrolled substance involved wa s h er oin, a drug lis ted in 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I

,

and ruled tha t Har mon committed an aggra vated fel o ny

.

W e h a v e determ ined that § 780

- 113(a)( 3 0) is divis ibl e with regard to the cond uct

to which it app lies and the type o f drug involved , whi ch can increase the prescribed rang e

of penalties

. Avila v. Att ’y Gen. , 826 F .3 d 662, 666 (3d Cir. 2016)

. Whe n a st atute is

divisible

, w e may apply t he modified categor ica l approach a nd “look[] to a limited class

of document s (for exa mple, the indictment , jury instructions, or plea agreem ent and

colloquy) to determine wha t crime, wi th what elements, a defenda nt was convicted of.”

Mathi s v. United St at es , 136 S. Ct. 2243 , 2 24 9 (2016)

.

Th e ad ministrative record inc lude s the informat i on and a “ Criminal C ourt Sheet ”

signed by the t rial judge, whi ch reflects Harmon ’ s se ntence of o n e y e a r l e s s o n e d a y t o7

t w o y e a r s l e s s one day for Count 1 of the informa tion. Co unt 1 charge d Harm on with

manuf act ure, delive ry , or poss ess ion with intent to m a n u f a c t u r e o r deliver h er oin. The

charge designates the offense with an “ F ” for felony. A l t h o u g h th e record d oes not

establish whether H a r m o n was convi c te d of manufacture, delivery

, or posse ssion with

i ntent to m a n u f

a c t u r e o r deliver he r oi n

, a c o n v i c t i o n o f a n y o f t h e s e o f f e n s e s i s a n a l o g o u s

t o a c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )

. S e e A vila

, 82 6 F.3d at 667 ( a Pennsylvani a

felony convict ion of p osse ssion of a control led substance with intent to deliver is

analogous t o § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. G l a s s

, 9 0 4 F

. 3 d 3 1 9

, 3 2 3 ( 3 d C i r

.

2 0 1 8 )

. B ecause the substance involve d i n H a r m o n ’ s o f f e n s e was her oin, a Schedule I

drug

, the offen se w o u l d b e p u n i s h a b l e a s a felony u n d e r t h e C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s A c t

.

See A v i l a

, 8 2 6 F

. 3 d a t 667

– 68. T h e B I A d i d n o t e r r i n r u l i n g t h a t Harmon ’ s conviction i s

an ag gravate d f

elony. 3

Harmo n disputes the IJ ’ s adverse credibility finding and a s s e r t s that the c ount ry

repo rt support s his claim that he will be ha rmed if removed. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t h e c o u l d

n o t h a v e p r o v i d e d d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e t o s h o w t h a t h e w a s a c h i l d s o l d i e r a s n o n e

e x i s t s

. H e s t a t e s t h a t h i s f a t h e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e a n d h i s m o t h e r w e r e t h r e a t e n e d

, t h a t h i s

f a t h e r c o u l d n o t h a v e k n o w n t h a t h e w a s c a p t u r e d b e c a u s e h e w a s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

,

a n d t h a t h e a n d h i s f

a t h e r d i d n o t s p e a k u n t i l h e c a m e h e r e i n 2 0 0 4

. H a r m o n a l s o

3 T o the extent Harmon cont end s that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43 )(B), which defi n es

aggra vated felon y as illi cit trafficking in a controlled substance

, is uncon s tit utional

, see

Brief at 6, we need not address this contention bec ause he p resents no supporting8

q u e s t i o n s t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t h i s f a t h e r s ub m i t t e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n filed

o n h i s b e h a l f i n l i g h t o f h i s f a t h e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y t

h a t h e h a d h e l p p r e p a r i n g i t

.

W e m u s t u

p h o l d t h e a g e n c y ’ s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s u n l e s s “ a n y r e a s o n a b l e a d j u d i c a t o r

w o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n t r a r y

. ” N a s r a l l a h

, 1 4 0 S

. C t

. a t 1 6 9 2

. T h i s

h i g h l y d e f

e r e n t i a l

, s ub s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s t o t h e a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y f i n d i n g

,

Abdu lrahman v. As h c roft , 330 F.3d 587, 597 (3 d Cir. 2003)

, a n d t h e f i n d i n g t h a t H a r m o n

w i l l n o t b e h a r m e d i f r e m o v e d

. S e e M yri e

, 8 55 F.3d at 516

.

T h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d d o e s n o t c o m p e l t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t H a r m o n t e s t i f i e d

c r e d i b l y o r t h a t h e w o u l d b e h a r m e d i f r e m o v e d

. A s t h e B I A r e c o g n i z e d

, H a r m o n ’ s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t L a w R e b e l a b d u c t e d h i m i n 1 9 9 9 o r e a r l y 2 0 0 0 a n d h e l d h i m u n t i l 2 0 0 3 i s

i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a c e r t i f

i c a t e r e f l e c t i n g t h a t h e w a s b a p t i z e d i n 2 0 0 1 a n d a s c h o o l r e c o r d

s h o w i n g t h a t h e e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l i n A u g u s t 2 0 0 0

. T o t h e e x t e n t H a r m o n s u g g e s t s t h a t

t h e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e f

a l s e

, t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h a t c o n c l u s i o n

. A l t h o u g h t h e

f o r m s t a t i n g t h a t H a r m o n h a d l i v e d i n G u i n e a w a s c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y h i s f a t h e r ’ s

t e s t i m o n y

, t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e r a i s i n g a q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e

a n d s c h o o l r e c o r d

. M o r e o v e r

, H a r m o n ’ s f a t h e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e s p o k e t o h i s w i f e w h e n h e

w a s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

, t h a t s h e a n d H a r m o n l i v e d t o g e t h e r d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d

, a n d t h a t

h e w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e a b d u c t i o n

. A c c e p t i n g t h e a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y f

i n d i n g

, H a r m o n

w o u l d b e t r e a t e d t h e s a m e a s a n y c i t i z e n i n L i b e r i a a n d h e d i d n o t s h o w b a s e d o n t h e

argument

. S e e Kost v. Kozakiewic z , 1 F.3d 176 , 182 (3d Cir. 199 3).9

c o u n t r y c o n d i t i o n s t h a t i t i s m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t h e w o u l d b e t o r t u r e d

. S e e

T a r r a w a l l y v

. A s h c r o f

t

, 3 3 8 F

. 3 d 1 8 0

, 1 8 8 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

.

Harmon also responds to the G overnment ’ s argument be f ore the IJ th at, if

credible, he is ineligible fo r rel ief because he committed war crimes as a ch ild s oldier

.

The IJ did not reach th is issue and it i s n o t b e f o r e u s

. In addition, H arm on argues th at his

crimina l counsel was ineffective

, b u t h e m a y n o t c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k h i s s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n i n

t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s

. See D r a k e s v

. I

. N

. S

. , 3 3 0 F

. 3 d 6 0 0

, 6 0 6 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

.

Acco rdingly, w e will d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w

.