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 6-9-2010 

# D e ns u 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 . 09-2315

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 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 " D e n s u v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1171. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1171I M G- 1 2 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. 09- 2315

___________ KWAM E DE NS U, 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

____________________________________ 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 098 496 580) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Fr eder i c G . L eeds

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

M ar ch 17, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, 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: J une 9, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM K w a m e D e n su , a c iti z e n o f G h a n a , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in Ju ly2 0 0 4 w ith author i zat i on t o r emai n fors i x m onths . H e over s t ay ed hi s per i od of admi s s i on and w as char ged w i t h r emovabi l i t ypur s uantt o I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”)T he i dol , w hi ch w as over100 y ear s ol d, “w as a s t atut e, m ade of ani m al bones and 1 c lo th , w h ic h lo o k e d lik e a b u ll.” 2 § 237( a) ( 1) ( B ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) ] . D ens u conce ded thathe w as r emovabl e as an over s t ay , and s oughtas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, D ens u expl ai ned thathe i s C hr i s t i an, l i ke hi s m other , but thathi s fatherand hi s father ’ s fami l yfol l ow ed “the ol d t r i bal r el i gi on. ” A dm i ni s t r at i ve R ec o rd (“ A . R . ”), 36 4 . D en su asse rt ed that h is fathe r’s fam il y(“the elde rs”), w h o are f ro m “ a c h ie f

c la n in th e A d a n g b e tr ib e ,” “ h a v e th e p o w e r o f g o v e rn m e n t.” A .R . 3 6 4 -6 5 . W h e n h i s f

a t h e rd i e d i n 2 0 0 0 , t h e e l d e r s p l a c e d a s a c r e d i d o l i n h i s mo t h e r ’ s b e d r o o m. 1 A s C h ri s tia n s , b o th D e n s u a n d h is m o th e r b e lie v e d th a t w o rs h ip in g th e id o l w a s w ro n g . T he el der s r efus ed t o r emove t he i dol , how ever , s o D ens u des t r oy ed i t . H e then tr avel ed to the U n it ed S tat es. D en su ’s bro ther, w h o w as in G h an a, w arn ed D en su n o t t o return beca us e the el der s had dec i ded thathe s houl d be ki l l ed fordes t r oy i ng the i dol . I n M ar ch 2007, the el der s pl ace d a “Publ i c N ot i ce” i n The G hanai an Ti m es , w h ich s tat ed : “E lders of A dj a t e ySa mas l e Fa mi l yof D oryumu a r e l oo ki ng fo rthe G r a nd s on K W A M E D EN SU forques t i oni ng foral l egedl ydes t r oy i ng thei rance s t r al l egac yi dol s . A nyknow l edge conce rni ng hi s w her eabout s m us tbe r epor t ed t o t he fa m i l yhead. ” A . R . 351. T he not i ce i ncl uded a phot ogr aph of D ens u. T he I J deni ed r el i ef, fi ndi ng t hatD ens u’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y , thatW e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatD ens u’ s as y l um appl i cat i on 2 w a s u n tim e ly . S e e IN A § 2 0 8 (a )(3 ) (s tatin g th a t “[ n ]o c o u rt sh a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew anydet erm i nat i on of the A t t orneyG ener al ” r el at i ng t o t he t i m el i nes s of an a s y l um appl i cat i on) ; Sukw anputr a v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 627, 632- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . I n addi t i on, w e not e thatD ens u does notchal l enge the adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ngs orthe deni al of r el i ef unde rt he C A T . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F. 3d 530, 532 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng t hatappea l of al i en’ s C A T cl ai m w as w ai ved w her e s he fa i l ed t o r ai s e any arg u m en t r eg ard ing the d en ial o f th at claim in h er b ri ef ). 3 th e re w e re “ sig n if

ica n t cr e d ib ili tyiss u e s in th is c a se ,” a n d th a t, ev e n if c re d ib le, th e d e a th th re a t f ro m th e e ld e rs d id n o t c o n s titu te p e rs e c u tio n . T h e B IA d is m is s e d D e n s u ’s a p p e a l. Itcon cl ud ed thatD ensu h ad n ot i den t i fi ed an yfactual orl egal error s i n the I J’ s adverse credi bil i tydeterm i nati on . T he B IA al so st at ed thatthe elders ’ threat s w ere notso m enac i ng as t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on and thatD ens u fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe pol i ce o rg o v e rn me n two u l d b e u n a b l e t o p r o t e c th i m. De n s u 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. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er IN A § 2 4 2 [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ]. C o n tr aryto D en su ’s 2 as s er t i on thatt he B oar d es s ent i al l yi s s ued an a ffi r m ance w i t houtopi ni on, w e conc l ude that“the B I A bot h adopt [ed] t he fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s e[d] s om e of the bas es for th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . ” Ch e n v . As h c r o f t , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e r e f o r e , “ we have a uthor i t yt o r evi ew t he dec i s i ons of both t he I J and the B I A . ” I d. W e r evi ew the B IA ’s an d IJ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo r sub stan ti al ev iden ce . S ee B ri sen o -F lores v . A tt ’y G en. , 492 F. 3d 226, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . “The [I J ’ s and] B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he c o n tr a ry.” Y u v . A tt’ yG e n ., 5 1 3 F . 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).4

Forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval t o a part i cul arcountr yunderthe I N A , an appl i cant m ustprove thathis l i fe or freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened i n thatcou ntrybecau se of [h i 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. ” IN A § 2 4 1 (b )(3 ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )]. “ T o m e e t th is te st, th e a lien m u st d e m o n stra te thatther e i s a gr eat er - t han- fi fty - per centchanc e of pe r s ecut i on upon hi s orherr eturn. ” Senathi r aj a v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . A n al i en ca n m eetthe w i t hhol di ng of r emoval s t andar d bydemonstr at i ng pas tper s ecut i on orbys how i ng a l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on. See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( b) . Si gni fi cant l y , “per s ecut i on connot es e x tre m e b e h a v io r, in c lu d in g th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic re stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to life o r f re e d o m .” A h m e d v . A sh c ro f t, 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I ndeed, “[i ] ti s es t abl i s hed . . . t hat thr eat s s t andi ng al one . . . cons t i tut e per s ecut i on i n onl ya s m al l cat egoryof ca s es , and onl yw hen the thr eat s ar e s o m enac i ng as t o caus e s i gni fi cantactual s uffe r i ng orharm . ” L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . U nful fi l l ed thr eat s m us tbe of a hi ghl yi m m i nentand menaci ng natur e i n or der t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. I d. W e agree w i t h the B IA t hat the record do es not com pel a fi nd i ng that D ensu es t abl i s hed a c l earpr obabi l i t yt hathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof a p rotec ted g rou n d . A t a relat ive’s f u n era l, D en su ’s bro ther lea rne d that the e lders

“ in s is t[ e d ] t o lyn c h o u t c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t o n [ D e n s u ]” f o r d e s tr o y in g th e id o l. A .R . 2 1 7 .5

D ens u’ s br ot herr epea t edl yw arned D ens u of thi s thr eat , fi r s tcal l i ng hi m i n D ece m ber 2004, then s endi ng a mess age vi a audi o cas s ett e t ape i n J ul y2005, and fi nal l yw r i t i ng a lette r in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . B a se d o n th e se w a rn in g s, D e n su c a n c e lled p lan s to re tu rn to G hana a nd began the pr oces s of s eeki ng as y l um . I n M ar ch 2007, the “Publ i c N ot i ce” s eeki ng D ens u’ s w her eabout s w as publ i s hed i n The G hanai an Ti m es . I m p o r t a n t l y, though, t he mostr ece nteff or tt o det erm i ne D ens u’ s w her eabout s – the publ i cat i on of the “Publ i c N ot i ce” i n The G hanai an Ti m es – occurr ed appr oxi m at el ythr ee y ear s ago, and D en su h as n o t al lege d that the e lders a re a cti v elyloo k ing fo r him . In f ac t, D en su ’s br others t at ed thatt he el der s “ar e of a ge . . . [and] I bel i eve w i t h t i m e thei rangerw i l l be s w al l ow ed dow n [by ] t hei rage. ” A . R . 216. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude that the thr eatdi d notr es ul ti n “hi ghl yi m m i nent ” orconcr et e harm t o D ens u. See Li , 400 F . 3d at16 5 (holdi ng t hat “unfu l fi l l ed thr eat s, even death threat s, [do ] notqu al i fyas past p erse cu ti o n u n less h igh lyim m inen t”). D e n su a rg u e s th a t th e IJ in a p p ro p ria telyc h a ra c ter ize d h is f e a r a s a “ f

a m ily pr obl em. ” B ot h t he B I A and the I J acc ur at el ynot ed, how ever , thatD ens u’ s cl ai m w as b a se d o n h is re lig io n a n d h is m e m b e rsh ip in a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p c o n sis tin g o f h is fami l y . D ens u al s o as s ert s t hatt he I J fai l ed t o “val i d[l y ] anal y [ze ] ” the bac kgr ound m at er i al he s ubm i t t ed, not i ng t hatt he 2006 St at e D epart m entC ount r yR epor t , the 2007 I nt ernat i onal Fr eedom R epor t , and the B r i t i s h H om e O ffi ce Sci ence and R es ear ch G r oup R epo rt“al l . . . detai l ed the problem of the con t i nu ance o f t ri bal autho ri t yw i t hin the m i dst6

of a moder n s t at e. ” D ens u al s o emphasi zes thathe pr es ent ed a l ett erfr om the O ffi ce of C ount ryA ffa i r s and A s y l um fort he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , w hi ch conc erned

“ th e e n th ro n e m e n t o f

a trib a l lea d e r c h ief

a n d th e im p o rta n c e o f

th e trib a l co n n e c tio n s in G hana. ” B utt he I J ’ s or al deci s i on s peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed ea ch of thes e document s and ac k n o w ledg ed that “the fo cu s is on [th e tri b e a s] a g o v ern m en tal en ti ty . ” A . R . 2 4 . T h e IJ th u s a c c e p ted D e n su ’s c laim th a t “trib a l g o v e rn m e n t is a p a ra llel f o rm o f g o v e rn m e n t in G hana, ” butpr oper l yconcl uded that“the thr eat s al one . . . w i t houtm or e ar e nots uffi ci ent des pi t e the r epugnantnatur e of thos e thr eat s . ” A . R . 31. F o rt h e a b o v e - s t a t e d 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.