2008 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 9-19-2008 

# S h ah 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 . 07-3089

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_2008

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 2008 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 " S h ah v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 513. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/5131

I M G- 1 8 3 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. 07- 3089

___________ AHMED AL I S HAH, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 79- 730- 960) I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e : H o n o r a b l e R o s a l i n d M a l l o y

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

Sept ember18, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember19, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA hm ad A l i Shah 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 ) deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval andShah conce des thatthi s C our tdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the I m m i gr at i on 1 J udge’ s det erm i nat i on, w hi ch w as aff i r m ed bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , that S h a h ’s a p p lica tio n w a s u n tim e lyf iled a n d th a t S h a h d id n o t q u a lifyf o r a n e x c e p tio n to the one- y earfi l i ng deadl i ne. See Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 633- 34 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); M u d ri c v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 6 9 F .3 d 9 4 , 1 0 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S h a h ’s a p p lic a tio n id e n tif ie d h im a s a M u s lim . 2 2 p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( CA T ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we 1 w ill g ra n t th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . Shah i s an appr oxi m at el yfor ty - y earol d m al e, nat i ve and c i t i zen of Paki s t an, w ho al l eges thathe fe ar s per s ecut i on and t or tur e bya Tal i ban- aff i l i at ed mi l i t i a named T ehr i ke- N afa z- e- Shar i at - e- M ohamm adi ( T N SM ) i f he i s r eturned t o Paki s t an. Shah fi r s tarr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es on oraboutA pr i l 4, 1999. Shah w as pl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs aft erthe s ervi ce of

a N ot i ce t o A ppeari n February2003, char gi ng hi m as bei ng re m o v a b le p u rs u a n t to Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t § 2 1 2 (a )( 6 )( A )( i) , 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . I n J ul y2003, Shah fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng fr om r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T . Shah s oughtr el i ef ba s ed on hi s r el i gi on, pol i t i cal opi ni on, and mem ber s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup. T he appl i cat i on i dent i fi ed 2 S hah ’s soci al group as “a j ou rnal i st , w orki ng for L i kw al M agazine i n S w atN orthw est Fr ont i erPr ovi nce Paki s t an . . . M yr eport s w er e cons i der ed unfa vor abl e t o the Tal i ban and thei rs uppor t er s . . . . ” A ppx. at62. B efore t he Im m i grat i on Judg e, S hah affirm ed thatfrom 19 95 -1997 he w orked a s a jo u rn a list f

o r L ik w a l, a m a g a z in e b a se d in M in g o ra , S w a t, an a re a lo c a ted in th e N o rth3

W es tFr ont i erof Paki s t an bor der i ng A fghani s t an. Shah t es t i fi ed thathi s w r i t i ngs s poke outagai ns tthe i m pl ement at i on of s tr i ctI s l ami c l aw ( Shar i a) i n the r egi on and aga i ns tt he T N S M ’s r e c ru itm e n t o f y o u n g b o y s a n d m e n to f ig h t alo n g sid e th e T a lib a n in A f g h a n is ta n . S h a h c la im e d th a t a s a re s u lt o f th e s e a c tiv itie s , h e w a s ta rg e te d b yT N S M . S h a h a l l e g e d th a tth e mi l i t i a a t t a c k e d h i s h o me i n 1 9 9 6 , i n c l u d i n g a g u e s th o u s e /h o me offi ce. Shah s ai d t hatdur i ng the att ack theybr oke furni tur e, t or e up pape r s , and “burned the pl ace . ” Shah al s o r ece i ved thr eat s overthe t el ephone. Shah fi l ed a pol i ce r eport , but n o a c tio n w a s ta k e n a g a in st th e m ili tia. S h a h a lso c laim e d th a t in 1 9 9 7 th e m ili tia a ttac k e d th e L ik w a l o f

f ice in M in g o ra C ity . A c c o rd in g to h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , m ili tia m ember s s hotthei rguns i n t he ai r , burned al l the pape r s i n the off i ce, and bea tShah on the hea d, s houl der s , and bac k w i th r i fl e butt s . Shah es cape d t o K ar achi , butt es t i fi ed that he cont i nued t o be pur s ued bym i l i t i a mem ber s and w as for ced t o m ove fr om one hi di ng p la c e to a n o th e r. S h a h tra v e led to th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 9 . H e tes tifie d th a t af terh is a rriv a l, his heal th began t o det er i or at e. Shah l os tw ei ght , began t o s uffe rfr om ches tpai n, and w as pr es cr i bed Zol oftforanxi ety . Shah al s o t es t i fi ed thataft erhi s departur e fr om Paki s t an, countrycondi t i ons w or s ened be caus e r el i gi ous l eade r s gai ned pow eri n 2000 and the T N SM or gani zat i ons beca m e more pow er ful . Shah cont ends thatpeopl e ar e s t i l l comi ng to h is f o rm e r h o m e in P a k is ta n a s k in g a b o u t h is w h e re a b o u ts . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed Shah’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng fr omS h a h t e s t i f i e d th a tth e r e f

e r e n c e t o a n “ o f

f i c e ” wa s th e g u e s th o u s e p a r to f h i s h o me 3 th a t w a s a ls o u s e d a s a n o f f ic e . 4 r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T . T he I J concl uded thathe w as i nel i gi bl e for as y l um beca us e he di d notappl yforas y l um unt i l foury ear s aft erhe arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es . She fur therconcl uded thathe had notdemonstr at ed exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s j us t i fy i ng thi s del aybeca us e, al though Shah cont ended he s uffe r ed fr om anxi ety , he had be en abl e t o fi nd and mai nt ai n empl oym enti m m edi at el yaft erhi s arr i val in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he I J deni ed Shah’ s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rt he CAT b a s e d o n a n a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i tyd e t e r mi n a t i o n . Th e I J i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l p r o b l e ms w i th Shah’ s t es t i m ony . Fi r s t , the I J concl uded thatShah had t es t i fi ed cr edi bl yw hen he s ai d thathe w as a “l ocal r eport erw i th s om e af fi l i at i on t o [the Li kw al ] m agaz i ne, ” butt hat th e r e w a s “ n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e r e s p o n d e n tw r o t e a n a r t i c l e c r i t i c i z i n g th e T N S M” b e c a u s e S h a h f

a ile d to s u b m it a s in g le a rt ic le h e h a d w ri tte n . A p p x . a t 2 2 -2 3 . Second, the I J found thatShah had t es t i fi ed i ncons i s t ent l yw i th a Fi r s tI nform at i on R eportfr om the K abal di s tr i ctpol i ce s t at i on i n Sw at . A ccor di ng t o the I J , Shah t es t i fi ed thathi s hous e w as att acke d and burned i n 1997, butthe Fi r s tI nform at i on R eportw as dat ed J anuary27, 1996, and Shah coul d notexpl ai n w hythe r eportw as dat ed bef or e the i nci dentoccurr ed. I n addi t i on, the Fi r s tI nform at i on R eporti ndi cat ed thatShah w as p re se n t at th e tim e o f

th e a ttac k o n h is “ o f

f ice ,” th a t T N S M m e m b e rs o p e n e d f ire o n h im 35

w i th danger ous arm s , butthathe es cape d. H ow ever , Shah t es t i fi ed thathe w as not pr es entw hen the TN SM r ai ded hi s hous e. A ccor di ngl y , the I J r ej ect ed Shah’ s t es t i m ony th a t h is h o m e a n d o f

f ic e w e re b u rn e d a s th e re s u lt o f h is w o rk f

o r t h e L ik w a l m a g a z in e . T hi r d, the I J concl uded thatan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as w arr ant ed beca us e none of

the doct or s i n t he medi cal r ecor ds he s ubm i t t ed “r efe rt o the pr obl ems of the r es pondenti n Paki s t an as bei ng the s our ce of hi s anxi ety . ” A ppx. at25. T he I J found th a t th e lac k o f

a d e m o n stra b le c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n S h a h ’s a n x ietya n d h is e x p e rie n c e s in Paki s t an, coupl ed w i th t he i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s t es t i m onyand the document s he su b m itt e d , u n d e rm in e d S h a h ’s c re d ib ili ty“ re g a rd in g h is o p p o sitio n to th e T N S M a n d h is w ri tin g s a tta c k in g o r d e m o n s tr a tin g h is o p p o s itio n to th e irg o a ls .” Id . Four th, the I J r ej ect ed Shah’ s t es t i m onythatm en w i th l ong bear ds appea r ed l ooki ng forhi m i n K ar achi aft erhe moved, and thathe w as for ced t o m ove fr om l ocat i on t o l ocat i on. T he I J found thatthe I - 589 form i ndi cat ed thathe r es i ded i n one l ocat i on o n ly. B as ed on the for egoi ng, the I J found thateven i f the as y l um appl i cat i on had bee n t i m el yfi l ed, the I J w oul d have f ound Shah i nel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e the r es pondent had fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng pas tand futur e per s ecut i on. T he I J fur ther concl uded thatShah had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h thatther e w as a cl earpr obabi l i tythathe w oul d be per s ecut ed upon r eturni ng t o Paki s t an orthathe w oul d be s ubj ectt o t or tur e for anyr eas on upon r eturni ng t o Paki s t an. A ccor di ngl y , the I J deni ed the appl i cat i on for6

w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T . T he I J di d, how ever , gr antShah v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, concl udi ng that , “The I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s fi ndi ngs thatthe r es pondenti s s t atut or i l yi nel i gi bl e foras y l um and o th e rw ise f

a iled to p ro v id e c re d ib le te stim o n ya n d e v id e n c e to m e e t h is b u rd e n to es t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and [CA T ] pr ot ect i on fr om P a k is ta n a re s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd .” S h a h th e n f ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . A s n o ted a b o v e, th is C o u rtd o es n o t hav e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the IJ’s det erm i nat i on, w hi ch w as aff i r m ed bythe B I A , thatShah’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el yfi l ed, and thatShah di d notqual i fyforan exc ept i on t o the one- y earfi l i ng dead l i ne. S ee S uk w anp utr a, 43 4 F . 3d at63 3-34; M ud ri c, 46 9 F . 3d at10 1. N on et heles s, thi s C our tr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the deni al of w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef underthe C A T . T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W her e, as her e, the B I A “di r ect s us t o t he opi ni on and dec i s i on of the I J w ho or i gi nal l yas s es s ed [the] appl i cat i on, w e r evi ew the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” Shah v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed S ta te s , 4 4 6 F .3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). Wh e r e a s a s y l u m i s d i s c r e t i o n a ry , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 (b)(3 )(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 )(A ), is m an d atoryif th e a p p li ca n t m ee ts a m o re s tr i ngents t andar d – t hati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” thathe ors he w i l l be per s ecut ed on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i calT he pr ovi s i ons of the R eal I D A ctof 2005 conc erni ng the C our t ’ s r evi ew of an 4 ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing d o n o t app lyin this ca se b ec au se S h ah ap p li ed fo r reli ef b ef o re the A ct ’ s eff

ect i ve dat e. See K ai t a v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es , 522 F. 3d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 7 opi ni on i f deport ed t o hi s orherhom e country . L ukw ago v. I N S, 329 F. 3d 157, 182 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T o o b tai n reli ef u n d er the C A T , an ap p li ca n t m u st establish tha t i t i s m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld b e to rt u re d if re m o v e d to th e p ro p o s e d c o u n tr yo f re m o v a l. T o u re v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , 4 4 3 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A n I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See B e rish a j v . A sh c ro f

t, 37 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n s b a se d o n sp e c u latio n o r c o n jec tu re a re n o t u p h e ld . S e e G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 29 9 F . 3d 26 6, 27 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). U nd er this st and ard, this C ou rtup ho l ds an ad verse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n u n les s “ a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. I n gener al , “mi nori ncons i s t enci es and mi noradmi s s i ons th a t re v e a l n o th in g a b o u t an a sy lu m a p p lica n t’s f e a r f o r h is s a f e tya re n o t an a d e q u a te basi s for an adv ers e credi bil i tyfi nd i ng . ” Id. (quotat i on om i t t ed). A nydis crepancies m ust i nvol ve the hea r tof the as y l um cl ai m . I d. 4 A l though t he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d gr ant s s i gni fi cantdefe r ence t o the adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on of the I J , w e conc l ude thatther e ar e a s uffi ci entnum ber of pr obl ems w i th t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on i n thi s cas e t o w arr antgr ant i ng Shah’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew . See i d. I n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , the I J i s i ncorr ectthatShah t es t i fi ed thatthe att ack8

o n h is ho m e o cc u rred in 1 9 9 7 , b u t th at th e p o li ce rep o rtind icated ito cc u rred in 1 9 9 6 . In fac t , Shah t es t i fi ed thathi s hous e w as att acke d i n 1996 and the Li kw al pr es s offi ce w as att acke d i n 1997. A ppx. at314, 316, 341, 343. T he I J ’ s m i s under s t andi ng m ayhave ar i s en bec aus e, on cr os s - exami nat i on, the att orneyforD H S i ncorr ect l ys t at ed thata pol i ce re p o rt h a d b e e n f

ile d in 1 9 9 7 , a n d S h a h d id n o t c o rr e c t h im . A p p x . a t 3 4 1 -3 4 2 . A d d iti o n a lly , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t S h a h w a s n o t cr e d ib le b e c a u se h e f a iled to p r o v i d e a s i n g l e c o p yo f a n a r t i c l e c r i t i c i z i n g th e T NS M th a th e h i ms e l f h a d wr i t t e n . As thi s C our texpl ai ned i n A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 554 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , otherw i s ecr edi bl e appl i cant s m ays om et i m es be r equi r ed t o s uppl ycorr obor at i ng evi dence i n or der t o m eetthei rbur den of pr oof. T hi s cont empl at es a thr ee–pa r ti nqui ry : ( 1) i dent i fi cat i on of the fa ct s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on; ( 2) an i nqui ryas t o w hether the appl i canthas pr ovi ded i nform at i on corr obor at i ng the r el evantfac t s ; and, i f he ors he has not , ( 3) an ana l y s i s of w hetherthe appl i canthas adequa t el yexpl ai ned hi s orher fa il u re to d o so . ” Id . (qu o tat ion o m itted). H ere , the IJ f ail ed to en g ag e in th e thre e-p art a n a ly sis c o n tem p late d in A b d u lai. T h e IJ s tate d th a t sh e f o u n d it “c u rio u s” th a t S h a h d id nots ubm i ta s i ngl e art i cl e w r i t t en byhi m even though he has “bas ed hi s ent i r e cl ai m on the fa ctthathe w r ot e art i cl es i n A pr i l of 1995 w hi ch [c r eat ed] hi s pr obl ems. ” A ppx. at 22. T he I J w enton t o s t at e that , “w hi l e the C our tcan f i nd the r es pondentt es t i fi ed cr edi bl yw hen he s ay s thathe w as a l ocal r eport erw i th s om e af fi l i at i on t o thi s m agaz i ne,N ot abl y , the I J s t at ed atthe conc l us i on of the hea r i ng thats he had “ no doubtthat 5 [Shah’ s ] w r i t t en an a r t i cl e aga i ns t[the mi l i t i a gr oup] . ” A ppx. at369. T he I J fol l ow ed thi s obs ervat i on bys ay i ng s he had noty etform ed a f i nal deci s i on, buti ti s uncl earw hy the I J appar ent l yl at erchange d herm i nd aboutw hetherShah had w r i t t en an a r t i cl e cr i t i cal o f th e T N S M . T he r es pondenti s i ncorr ectthatShah cont ends thathe w as notabl e t o pr ovi de copi es 6 o f h is a rticle s b e c a u se th e yw e re b u rn e d d u rin g th e a ttac k s f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. T h e re sp o n d e n t is c o rre c t, ho w e v e r, th a t S h a h d id n o t ra ise a c laim b a se d o n th e c o ld c o u rt ro o m c o n d itio n s b e f o re th e B IA . W e w ill n o t a d d re s s th is u n e x h a u s te d c la im .

9 th e C o u rt h a s n o e v id e n c e th a t th e re s p o n d e n t w ro te a n a rt ic le c ri tic iz in g th e T N S M .” 5 A p p x . at 22 -23 . H o w ev er, th e IJ’s o p inion d o es n o t r ef lect w h ethe r she ev alua ted S h ah ’s expl anat i on thathi s document s w er e burned i n an att ack, and pr ovi des no anal y s i s of otherevidence S hah off ered t o co rr ob orat e his cl ai m s. 6 Speci fi cal l y , the I J di d notaddr es s tw o l ett er s fr om governm entoffi ci al s thatShah su b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f

h is c laim . O n e o f

th e se tw o lette rs a f

f irm s th a t S h a h o p e n ly cr i t i ci zed the TN SM . T he otherl ett ers t at es thatShah publ i s hed a r eportabouta r el i gi ous o rg a n iz a tio n a n d th e re f o re s o m e m e m b e rs o f

th is o rg a n iz a tio n w a n te d to k ill h im . B eca us e thi s evi dence w as pot ent i al l ycorr obor at i ve of Shah’ s cl ai m s , i ts houl d have be en cons i der ed and e val uat ed bef or e hi s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T w as deni ed. C f. G ao, 299 F. 3d at277 ( “B eca us e of the hi gh pr obat i ve val ue of thi s evi dence , w hi ch s uppor t s G ao’ s cons i s t entt es t i m ony , r econc i l es a m b ig u iti e s a n d c o n f

licts w ith th e su sp e c t re p o rt c a rd s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s re v e rsib leW e expr es s no opi ni on r egar di ng the cr edi bi l i tyof thes e tw o document s and l eave 7 thi s det erm i nat i on t o t he fa ctfi nderon r emand. See G ao, 299 F. 3d at277. 10 erro r fo r th e IJ to f

ail to ev alua te an d d iscu ss it . ”). 7 Fur ther , al though w e agr ee w i th the I J thatShah di d nots at i s fac t or i l yexpl ai n w hy he tes t i fi ed thathe w as not atho m e du ri ng the att ack o n h i s hou se – w hereas the F i rs t I nform at i on R eportappea r s t o s ugges tthathe w as athom e and e s cape d – w e ar e tr oubl ed bythe fa ctthatthe I J pl ace d s uch emphas i s on the Fi r s tI nform at i on R eporti n m aki ng her cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. A l though the I J concl uded thatthi s unauthent i cat ed document sh o u ld n o t b e g iv e n “ m u c h w e ig h t,” s h e b a se d a c e n tra l p a rt o f h e r a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng on t hi s r eport . C f. Shah, 446 F. 3d at436 ( obs ervi ng thatthe I J “s houl d nothave in v o k e d e v id e n c e h e e x c lu d e d to u n d e rm in e [ th e p e titio n e r’ s ] c la im s ” ). M or eover , the I J ’ s concl us i on thatShah di d nott es t i fycr edi bl yaboutbei ng for ced t o m ove ar ound K ar achi beca us e TN SM m ember s appea r ed ther e l ooki ng forhi m i s not su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . T h e IJ r e jec ted th is te stim o n yb e c a u se th is i nform at i on had notbeen br oughtt o the court ’ s att ent i on ear l i er , and bec aus e, acc or di ng to th e IJ , S h a h ’s I- 5 8 9 f o rm in d ic a te d th a t h e h a d re s id e d in o n e lo c a tio n in K a ra c h i o n ly. H ow ever , as Shah pl aus i bl yexpl ai ned dur i ng the hea r i ng, he l i ved i n di ffe r entpl ace s w i thi n the K emar i ar ea. T hi s t es t i m onyw as cons i s t entw i th hi s I - 589 For m w hi ch in d ic a te d th a t h e liv e d in th e “ K e m a ri A re a ” o f K a ra c h i f

ro m 1 9 9 7 -1 9 9 9 . Fi nal l y , the I J ’ s concl us i on thatan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed11

b yth e a b se n c e o f

e x p licit re f

e re n c e s in S h a h ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s to h is e x p e rie n c e s in Paki s t an i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he I J obs erved that“[n] one of the d o c to rs r e f

e r to th e p ro b lem s o f

th e re sp o n d e n t in P a k ista n a s b e in g th e so u rc e o f h is anxi ety . I f i n fac tthe r es pondentw as fee l i ng anxi ous on acc ountof dea th thr eat s he had rec eive d in P ak ist an , o n e w o u ld think that this w o u ld h av e b ee n m en ti o n ed to the d o ctors w hen theyw er e exa m i ni ng hi m . . . w hi l e ther e ar e medi cal r ecor ds r efl ect i ng thatthe r es pondenti s s uffe r i ng fr om anxi ety , ther e ar e no medi cal r ecor ds w hi ch l i nk hi s m ent al sta te to a n yth in g th a t h a p p e n e d to h im in P a k ista n .” A p p x . at 2 5 . A f ter m a k in g th is obs ervat i on, the I J w enton t o r e- aff i r m heradver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, s t at i ng t hat “[w ] hen one c oupl es thatw i th t he document s thatr es pondents ubm i t t ed w hi ch contr adi ct hi s t es t i m onyorw hi ch ar e i ncons i s t entw i th hi s t es t i m ony , the C our tcannotfi nd thatt he r es pondenthas t es t i fi ed cr edi bl yr egar di ng hi s oppos i t i on t o the TN SM and hi s w r i t i ngs att acki ng ordemonstr at i ng hi s oppos i t i on t o thei rgoal s . ” I d. I ti s uncl eart o us w hyt he a b se n c e o f

a n ym e d ica l re c o rd s e x p licitlylin k in g h is d e p re ss io n a n d a n x ietyto h is exper i ence s i n Paki s t an underm i nes Shah’ s cr edi bi l i tyr egar di ng hi s oppos i t i on t o the T N S M o r t h e e x is te n c e o f w ri tin g s d e m o n s tr a tin g h is o p p o s itio n to th e T N S M . Fur therm or e, as the I J her s el f obs erved, the r ootof hi s anxi etyorpani c att acks i s “not c lea r” f ro m th e m e d ica l re c o rd s. Id . T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s im p e rm iss ib le sp e c u latio n to in f

e r th a t h is m e d ica l re c o rd s b e lied S h a h ’s c re d ib ili tyre g a rd in g h is o p p o s i t i o n t o th e T N S M.12

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , and r emand for f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s (i n c lu d in g a n yn e c e s s a ry f a c t- f in d in g ) c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .