### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 10009

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 091- 876 F R E D N R E K A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M a y 16, 2005) B efo re B A R K E T T , H IL L an d F A R R IS , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *The Home land Security Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, was signed 1 i nt o l awo nN o v e mb e r

2 5 , 2 0 0 2 . T h eA c tc r e at e d a n e wD ep artm e nto f

H o m e l an d

S e c uri ty, abolished the I

NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department. B eca use this casewas ini tiate d whil etheI

NS w a s stillin e xistenc e , w ere fer t o th ea g e nc y a s th eI NS. 2 B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: F r e d N r e ka , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of A l ba ni a w ho s oughta dm i s s i on t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s unde rthe V i s a W a i ve rP r ogr a m ( “ V W P ” ) , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de ra dopt i ng a nd a f f i r m i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on t o de ny hi m a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) and t he U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a t m e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) . F orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d be l ow , w e c onc l ude tha tw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a B I A de t e r m i na t i on r e ga r di ng a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l of

a V W P a ppl i c a nt . T ha tbe i ng s o, how e ve r , on the m e r i t s of N r e ka ’ s c l a i m s on a ppe a l , w e a f f i r m the B I A ’ s a nd I J ’ s de c i s i ons de ny i ng a s y lu m - r e la te d r e lie f

. I. R el evan t F acts an d P roce d u ral H i st ory O n Jul y 7, 20 01 , N re ka, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f A l bani a, arri ved i n t he U ni t ed S t at es and at t em pt ed t o g ai n ent ry w i th a fr audu l entpass po rt . N re ka w as det ai ned and t he IN S i ni t i at ed i m m i grat i on proceedi ng s by f i l i ng a N ot i ce of R ef

erra l t o an 1 IJ (F o rm I-8 6 3 ). B ecau se h e at t em p t ed t o en t er th e U n i t ed S t at es w i th a S w ed i shAs explained infra, under the VWP, the Attorney General is per

mitted to allow aliens 2 from certain countrie s to enter the United Sates for up to 90 da y s without a visa as nonimmigra nt visitors. S ee 8 U .S.C. § 1187(a); 8 C.F.R. § 217 et seq. Nre ka’s noticeof re fer

ral for m classifies him as a “ VWPP ” applica nt, referringto the “Visa Waiver

PilotProgram.”Congress amende d the statute in 2000 to make the program perma nent. See Visa

Waiver Permanent Program Act, Pub. L . 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637 (2000). The program is now re fer red to a s the “Visa Waiver Program.”See 8 U.S.C. § 1187. A grant of te mporary

paroleis not considered admission t o the United States. See 8 3 U. S.C. § 1 18 2( d) (5 )(A) (“ [P]aroleof [any a lien a pp lyingfo r admi ssi on

to t heU. S.] alien s hall not be re g arde d as an admission of the alien . . . .”); Kw ai Fun Wongv. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 958 n.8 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 pass po rt , and S w eden i s a part i ci pantcoun try of the V i sa W ai ver P rogram , se e I N A § 2 1 7 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 7 ( a ) , N r e k a w a s id e n tif ie d a s a “V W P a p p lic a n t.” 2 N r e k a r e q u e s te d a s y lu m a n d w a s th e r e f o r e p la c e d in s o - c a lle d “a s y lu m o n ly p r o c e e d in g s ,” p u r s u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § § 2 1 7 .4 a n d 2 0 8 .2 ( c ) . W h ile a w a itin g h is h e a r in g b e f

o r e th e I J , h e w a s p a r o le d in to th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 11 82 (d)( 5)(A ). 3 In hi s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um and h i s t es t i m on y bef ore the IJ , N re ka cl ai m ed thatthe A l bani an go vernm ent , w hi ch re pres ent ed the S oci al i stP ar ty ( “ S P ”) , p e r s e c u te d h im b a s e d u p o n h is p o litic a l o p in io n a n d m e m b e r s h ip in th e D e m o c r a tic P a r ty ( “ D P ” ) . N r e ka be ga n a s a D P s y m pa thi z e ri n 1997, a s s i s t i ng the pa r ty by pr ovi di ng s e c ur i ty f

orthe D P he a dqua r t e r s . H e be c a m e a pa r ty m e m be ri n 1998, a nd c ont i nue d pa r t i c i pa t i on by or ga ni z i ng e ve nt s s uc h a s m e e t i ngs , pr ot e s t s a nd de m ons tr a t i ons . N r e ka s t a t e d tha the s uppor t e d the D P be c a us e , unl i ke the S P , the4

D P d id n o t d e ta in a n d m is tr e a t th e p e o p le a n d h a d r e c o g n iz e d h u m a n r ig h ts w h ile it w a s in p o w e r . N r e k a a lle g e d th a t a f

te rh e jo in e d th e p a r ty , th e p o lic e – a s a r e s u lt o f h is be i ng on a l i s tpr opos e d by the pr e s i de ntof A l ba ni a – s t a r t e d pe r s e c ut i ng hi m a nd hi s f am i l y. H e des cr i bed severa l i nci dent s of per se cut i on . F i rs t , N re ka cl ai m ed th a th e w a s b e a t e n b y a g r o u p o f e i g h tt o t e n p o l i c e me n w h i l e o n h i s w a y h o me f r o m a D P me e t i n g i n J u n e o f 1 9 9 8 . N r e k a s t a t e d th a tth e p o l i c e me n s t o p p e d h i m, te llin g h im th a t th e y w a n te d to c la r if y s o m e th in g s a b o u t th e D P , a n d th e n to o k h im t o a be a c h a nd be a thi m up w i th ba t ons , rubbe rs t i c ks , a nd the ba r r e l of a gun. T he o f f ic e r s a lle g e d ly b r o k e N r e k a ’s le g a n d le f t h im u n c o n s c io u s , a n d h e w o k e u p in S hk od erho spi t al . N re ka t ol d t he IJ thathe pai d t o b e tra nsfe rr ed t o a m i l i t ary h o s p ita l b e c a u s e h e d id n o t tru s t th e d o c to r s a t S h k o d e rh o s p ita l. S e c o n d , N r e k a te s tif

ie d th a t o n s e v e r a l o c c a s io n s in 1 9 9 8 , th e p o lic e w e n t to h i s fam i l y’ s h o u se t o search fo r h i m . T h ey al l eg ed l y ask ed ab o u th i s w h ereab o u t s, s h o v e d h is p a r e n ts to th e g r o u n d , a n d h it h is b r o th e ra n d w if e . T hi rd, N re ka st at ed thathe w as arre st ed and d et ai ned for tw enty- four ho urs b y th e p o li ce in O cto b er o f 2 0 0 0 w h il e o n h is w ay h o m e f ro m th e D P ’s he a dqua r t e r s i n S hkode r . A gr oup of pol i c e of

f i c e r s s t oppe d hi m on the r oa d a nd t ol d h i m t o com e w i th t hem “ t o cl ar i fy som e thi ng s. ” H e a l l eges thatthe offi ce rs5

t oo k h i m t o a ce l l and t hrea t ened thati f he di d n otce as e hi s D P ac t i vi t i es , they w o u ld d o to h im w h a t th e y d id in J u n e o f 1 9 9 8 w h e n th e y b r o k e h is le g , a n d w o u ld “d e s tr o y , o rb u r n ” h is f

a m ily . A f

te rh e w a s r e le a s e d u n in ju r e d , N r e k a s ta y e d a t h is p a r e n ts ’ h o u s e f

o rtw o d a y s , a n d th e n m o v e d f r o m p la c e to p la c e , u n til h e f le d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, N r e ka c onc e de d tha tbe tw e e n J une of 1998 a nd O ct ob erof 20 00 , he had al so been det ai ned b y the po l i ce approx i m at el y s even othe rt i m e s , f

orone t o tw o hour s e a c h. H e e xpl a i ne d tha ton the s e oc c a s i ons , he w as o n e o f sev eral p eo p l e ran d o m l y st o p p ed an d search ed b y th e p o l i ce b ecau se th e y w e r e s u s p e c te d o f

p o s s e s s in g ille g a l w e a p o n s . S om e of N re ka’ s f

am i l y c on t i nu es t o l i ve i n A l bani a, i ncl ud i ng hi s m ot her, w ho ha s r e c e i ve d a gove r nm e ntpe ns i on f orthe pa s tf

i ve ors i x y e a r s ; hi s w i f e , w ho c oul d nota f

f or d the tr i p t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; a nd tw o br othe r s , one of w hom N r e ka s a y s h a s a ls o e x p e r ie n c e d p r o b le m s b e c a u s e o f h is a f f ilia tio n w ith th e D P . In addi t i on t o N re ka’ s t es t i m on y abo utthe abov e i nci dent s, N re ka pres ent ed th e f o llo w in g d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e : ( 1 ) a n id e n tif ic a tio n c a r d s h o w in g h is m em bers hi p i n t he D P ; (2) a l ett erfr om the D P , st at i ng thatN re ka had p rot ec t ed d em o crat i c i n st i tu t i o n s fro m b ei n g b u rn ed d o w n d u ri n g a 1 9 9 7 co m m u n i st r e be l l i on a nd tha the ha d be e n “ pr os e c ut e d, thr e a t e ne d[ , ] a nd i l l - tr e a t e d f r om theNre ka also submitted the U.S. Depa rtment of State’s “ 2000 Country Report on Human 4 Rights Pr a c tic e s in

Alba nia”(“ 20 00 Countr

y Repo rt ” ), wh ic h s tate d, int e r alia , th at ( 1) Alba nia is a republic w ith a multiparty parliament, prime minister, and pre sident who was e lected by parliame nt; (2) the SP won 121 of 155 seats in parliament in the 1997 Albanian e lections, which oc c ur re d “ a ft e r a

5- month p e ri od

of c ha os and

ana rc hy du eto t hec oll a ps eof [inv e stm e nt] py ramid sche mes”; (3) one of thebigg est problems with internal se curity was untrained and unreliablepolice off

icer s; (4) the g overnment generally respe cted human rights, but therewere still numerous, serious problems; (5) despite the D P’s cre dible claims that its members were hara ssed and be aten by

the g overnme nt, there w ereno confirme d case s of political killings by theg ov e rnme nt; (6 ) alth ou gh th ec on sti tution stipu late d ag a ins t to rt

ureand br utal tre atment, police off icer s often bea

t and mistreated suspe cts and prisone rs; (7) morethan 190 police officers were fire d in 2000 beca use of “ incompetenc e, lac k of discipline, or violations of the law”; ( 8) the policecontinued to ar rest and de tain people a

rbitrarily ; and (9) A lbanians who fle d were we lcomed bac k and could ha ve their c itiz enship restore d. Am on goth e r documents , th eI NS s ub mitte d th eB ure a

u o f D e moc rac y , Huma

n Ri ghts and L abor’ s May

2001 repor

t entitled “Albania: Profile of Asylum Cl aims and Country Con dition s”(“ 20 01 Prof

ile ” ), wh ic h s tate d th at ( 1) thec oll a ps eof fina nc ial py ra mid sc he me s in 1997 cause d many

Albanians to lose their lifesaving s and provoke d fighting a nd disorder in the country ; (2) during1997, 700,000 firea rms were looted from mili tary depots; and (3) order

was restore d with the formation of a g overnment of national re conciliation, and in June of 1997 natio nal e le c tio ns brou ght t heSP to po wer. Th e20 01 Prof ilefu rt her s tate d th at “ [t]he reis virtually no evidenc e that individuals aretarg eted f or mistreatment on political grounds,” a nd that “[f]ar more prevalent is org anized and amateur c rime, exace rbate d by the widespre ad availability

of fire arms, high unemploy ment and pover

ty , continued cor

ruption amongthe police and a culture of blood feud that is wholly independent of political activity .” TheProfile stated that th eSP c ur

rently le d a c oalition g ov e rnme nt a

nd that “ a ll p oli tic a l pa

rtie s h avebe e n a c tiv ein most of the country

without a pattern of

mistreatment . . . .” 6 e x- s e c ur i ty of

the c om m uni s ts t a t e , ” w hi c h pos e d a s e r i ous thr e a tt o hi s l i f e ; a nd ( 3) a l e t t e rf

r om S hkode rhos pi t a l , s t a t i ng tha the s t a y e d i n the hos pi t a l f r om J une 1 7 , 1 9 9 8 , to J u n e 1 9 , 1 9 9 8 , a n d th e n tr a n s f e r r e d to th e m ilita r y h o s p ita l. 4 T he IJ deni ed N re ka’ s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A and t he C A T . A ft ersum m ar i zi ng the t es t i m on i al and d ocum ent ary e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b y N r e k a , a n d e x p la in in g th e s ta n d a r d f o re s ta b lis h in g a w e llfoun ded fearof future pers ec ut i on , the IJ st at ed that“ m uch o f the evi dence thathas7

be e n s ubm i t t e d, a s w e l l a s the t e s t i m ony , t e nds t o be nots ubs t a nt i a l t o the e xt e nt tha ti tw oul d r e a c h the s t a nda r ds w hi c h w oul d ne e d t o be a c hi e ve d t o s a t i s f y the bur de n of

pr oof r e l a t i ng t o pol i t i c a l a s y l um . ” H e obs e r ve d tha tN r e ka ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s “g e n e r a l in n a tu r e a n d lim ite d to d e ta ils th a t a r e a p p a r e n tly r e a d ily a v a ila b le in the [U . S . D epar t m entof S t at e’ s] 20 00 C ou nt ry R eport[on H um an R i gh t s P ra ct i ce s i n A l ba ni a ] orothe rge ne r a l doc um e nt s r e l a t i ng t o A l ba ni a ” a nd not e d hi s c onc e r ns a boutN r e ka ’ s c r e di bi l i ty . H e obs e r ve d tha tN r e ka ’ s m othe rc ont i nue d t o r e c e i ve her gov ernm entpensi on and st at ed hi s bel i ef thatN re ka’ s f

am i l y w ou l d h ave been a f f e c te d if th e g o v e r n m e n t s o u g h t to h a r m N r e k a . T h e I J f o u n d it “a little b it s tr a in in g o f

c r e d u lity ” th a t th e p r e s id e n t h a d a n a g e n d a th a t w a s s p e c if ic a lly a d v e r s e to N r e k a , c o n s id e r in g th a t N r e k a w a s n o t h e a v ily in v o lv e d in th e s tru g g le be tw e e n the S P a nd the D P . L a s t l y , the I J f ound “ tr oubl i ng” the f

a c ttha tN r e ka s oughta tr a ns f

e rt o the m i l i t a r y hos pi t a l i ns t e a d of a ge ne r a l hos pi t a l s i nc e he cl ai m ed t o fea r the go vernm ent . T he IJ ul t i m at el y f ou nd “ the re spon dent ’ s a rr i val i n the c ountr y by us e of f r a ud, hi s t e s t i m ony , a nd the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d t o be i ns uf f i c i e ntt o m e e thi s bur de n of pr oof , a nd thi s C our tf

i nds tha thi s a ppl i c a t i on f or po l i t i ca l as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and rel i ef pu rs uantt o t he T ortureThis is becauseNreka wa s ref erred to the IJfor a sylum only proce eding s, where , 5 a c c ordin gto ag e nc y

re gulatio n, thesc op eof

theproc e e din gis l imi te d e xclu siv e ly to a sylum re late d re lie f, su c h th at th ea lien c ann ot c onte st admi ssibil ity, re mov a bil ity, o r ra isec laims c on c e rn inghis e lig ibi lity

fo r o ther f

or ms o f re lie f. Se e8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .2 (c )( 3) (i ) ( a sylum -o nly proc e dure s f

or VWP a pp lic ants ). It is no t c le ar, ho we ver, that 8 C .F .R. § 2 08 .2 (c )( 3) (i ) i s a rea sonable interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b), g iven that the waiver of rights de scribed in the statute is a pre requisite for admission under the VWP, and Nre ka wa s never so admitted. Although w e do not fa ce this issue now, it seems unlikely that the I NS can rejec t Nreka ’s admission under the VWP, but neverthele ss hold Nreka to the VWP waiver as if hehad been admitted. It also seems unlikely that such waiver c an justify proce eding s different from the proce eding s established by the I NA for aliens at the border who arrive with fra udulent do c uments but se e k a sylum . N o c ourt ha s ye t a dd

re sse d th is i ssu e . In e very a pp e llatec a se dealingwith VWP waiver s, the alien wa s in fact a dmitted under the program, but af ter violating its terms (e.g ., overstay

ing the90 days), sought relief f rom subsequent removal proce eding s. See Ha nda v. Clark , 401 F .3d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 2005); Wigg lesworth v. I NS, 319 F.3d 951, 954 (7th Cir. 2003); Itaeva v. I NS, 314 F.3d 1238, 1239 (10th Cir. 2003); Auguste v. Reno, 152 F.3d 1325, 1326 ( 11th Cir. 1998); Nose v. Att’y Gen., 993 F .2d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1993). 8 C o n v e n tio n s h o u ld b e d e n ie d , a n d a r e h e r e b y d e n ie d .” T h e I J d id n o t e x p r e s s ly or de rN r e ka r e m ove d. 5 N r e k a a p p e a l e d t o th e BI A , a r g u i n g th a tth e I J e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i m a s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe I N A , a nd C A T r e l i e f . T he B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on, a gr e e d tha tN r e ka ’ s c l a i m w a s “ notc r e di bl e , ” a nd d is m is s e d N r e k a ’s a p p e a l. N r e k a tim e ly f ile d th is p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . I I I . D i s c u s s i on A . J ur i s di c t i on T he fi rs tqu es t i on pres ent ed i s w hether, un der the IN A as am ended b y the I l l e g a l I mm i g r a t i o n Re f o r m a n d I mm i g r a n tRe s p o n s i b i l i ty Ac to f 1 9 9 6 , Pu b . L. N o. 10 4-20 8, 11 0 S t at . 30 09 (199 6) (“ II R IR A ”) , w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov eraIn this case, the Court raised the que stion sua sponte, askingthe par ties to brief the 6 followingjurisdictional question: Whether this Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 1), (a)(2) (A) (which g overns “ final order[s] of re moval”), or otherwise to c onsider a pe tition for revie w filed by

an applica

nt for the Visa

Waiver Program (“VWP”), I NA § 217, 8 U.S.C. § 1187 and 8 C.F.R. § 217 et seq., of theBoa rd of Immigration Appeals’s a ff ir manc eof an Immi gratio n Judg e ’s op ini on , whic h w a s is su e d p ur su ant t o “asy lum only proce eding s” under

8 C.F.R. § 217, 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c) , and which denied a sylum and withholding of removal without expressly ordering thealien’s removal? See Itaeva

v. I NS, 314 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2003) (persua sive authority ); In Re Kanag asundram, 22 I . & N . Dec . 963 (B IA 1993). (F ootnote omitted). See F itz g erald v. Seaboard Sy s. R.R., Inc., 760 F .2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 19 85 ) ( “ A f

e de ral c ourt

no t on ly ha s th epo wer b ut also theob lig atio n at a ny tim eto inq

uireint o jurisdic tio n whe ne ve r t

hepo ssibil ity

that juri sdic tio n d oe s n ot e xist a ri se s. ” ); Galin do -D e l V a lle v. Att’y General, 213 F .3d 594, 599 n.2 (11th Cir. 2000). B oth the Attorney General a

nd the appellant takethe position that we havejurisdiction under the c ircumstance s presented here. 9 pet i t i on for r evi ew of a B IA order thatdeni es as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al b u t d o e s n o t e x p r e s s ly o r d e rr e m o v a l o f a V W P a p p lic a n t in “a s y lu m o n ly p r o c e e d in g s ” p u r s u a n t to I N A § 2 1 7 ( a ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 7 ( a ) a n d 8 C .F .R . § § 2 1 7 .4 a nd 208. 2. 6 I N A § 242, 8 U . S . C . § 1252, i s the j ur i s di c t i ona l ba s i s f ori m m i gr a t i on d et erm i n at i o n s p o st -IIR IR A . Itst at es: ( a ) A ppl i c a bl e pr ovi s i ons (1) G ener al orders of re m ov al Judi ci al re vi ew of a f

i nal order of re m ov al (other than an o rder of r e m ova l w i thouta he a r i ng pur s ua ntt o s e c t i on 1225( b) ( 1) of thi s t i t l e) i s gov erned o nl y by c hapt er15 8 o f T i t l e 28, exce ptas p r o v id e d in s u b s e c tio n ( b ) o f th is s e c tio n . . . (2) M att er s notsubj ec tt o j ud i ci al re vi ew10 . . . (B ) D eni al s of di sc re t i on ary r el i ef N otw i ths t a ndi ng a ny othe rpr ovi s i on of l a w , no c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w – . . . ( i i ) a ny othe rde c i s i on ora c t i on of the A tto r n e y G e n e r a l th e a u th o r ity f o rw h ic h is s p e c if

ie d u n d e rth is subchapt ert o b e i n t he di sc re t i on of the A t t orney G ener al , ot her than the grant i ng of re l i ef

un der s ec t i on 11 58 (a ) of thi s t i t l e. 8 U . S . C . § 1252. I n r e l e va ntpa r t , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) pe r m i t s “ [ a ] ny a l i e n w ho is p h y s ic a lly p r e s e n t in th e U n ite d S ta te s o rw h o a r r iv e s in th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . ir r e s p e c tiv e o f

s u c h a lie n ’s s ta tu s , [ to ] a p p ly f o ra s y lu m . . . .” N r e k a a p p lie d f

o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 11 58 (a ) a nd the C A T and n ow appeal s the B IA ’ s ( and IJ’ s w here appl i cabl e) fi nal det er m i nat i on denyi ng such re l i ef . W e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew hi s c l ai m un der th e ju r is d ic tio n a l g r a n t in § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e I N S ’s p o s itio n th a t, assu m i n g th atth e “ fi n al o rd er o f rem o v al l an g u ag e” o f § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1 ) act s as a c ondi t i on pr e c e de ntt o the gr a ntof j ur i s di c t i on thr oughoutthe r e m a i nde rof § 1252, th e d en i al o f asyl u m an d w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al i n N rek a’ s case co n st i tu t es a “f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l” f

o rju r is d ic tio n a l p u rp o s e s . S e e D e l P ila rv . A tt’y G e n ., 326 F . 3d 1154, 1156- 57 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha ta B I A de c i s i on r e ve r s i ng the IJ ’ s gra ntof a w ai ver of i nadm i ss i bi l i ty und erIN A § 2 12 (c ) w as a f i nal order o f r e mo v a l b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o th i n g l e f tf o rD e l Pi l a rt o a p p e a l ) ; Pe r k o v i c v . I N S, 3 3 F .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 -1 9 (6 th C ir.1 9 9 4 ) ( h o ld in g th at a B IA o rd er re v er sin g an IJ ’sMoreover, § 1252(a)(2) (B )(ii) – whic h, unlike 1252(a) (1), c ontains no languag e that 7 could be inter

prete d as re quiringthat the petitioner besubject to a “ final order of removal” – may itself provide a

grant of jurisdiction to review any denial of a sylum. See Gede on v. Att’y Gen. , 0 3- 15 78 5 at *5 -6 (1 1th Cir . N ov . 5 , 2 00 4) (u

np ub lis he d) (“ F ir st, thi s Co ur t’ s juri sdic tio n to enter tain [an unsuccessf

ul VWP applicant’ s] petit ion for review of thedenial of his asy lum application is found in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 2)(B )(ii).” ) (c iting Ha oud v. Ashcrof t, 350 F.3d 201, 205 (1st Cir. 2003), and Tse vegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F .3d 1231, 1234 (10th Cir. 2003)). 11 gr a ntof a s y l um a nd r e m a ndi ng the c a s e w a s a “ f i na l or de rof

de por t a t i on” a nd n o t i n g th a ti twa s n o t“ a wa r e o f [ a n y ] a u th o r i ty f

o rth e p r o p o s i t i o n th a ta [ B I A] or de rr e j e c t i ng a n a s y l um a ppl i c a t i on i s nota f i na l or de runl e s s a f

or m a l or de rof de por t a t i on ha s a l r e a dy be e n i s s ue d” ) ; c f . K hup v. A s hc r of

t , 376 F . 3d 898, 902 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( exer ci si ng j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (1) over a p e titio n f o rr e v ie w o f

th e d e n ia l o f

r e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l b y a n a lie n p la c e d in pr oc e e di ngs f

orove r s t a y i ng hi s pe r i od of l a w f ul a dm i s s i on unde rthe V W P ) . T he de ni a l of a n a s y l um a ppl i c a t i on i n a V W P pr oc e e di ng i s s o c l os e l y t i e d t o the r e m ova l of

the a l i e n tha ti tc a n be de e m e d – i n c onj unc t i on w i th the r e f e r r a l t o the i m m i grat i on j ud ge – as a fi nal order of re m ov al , subj ec tt o § 12 52 (a )( 1). 7 W e do notf

i nd a ny s i gni f

i c a ntdi s t i nc t i on i n N r e ka ’ s V W P s t a tus . O ur i n t e rp r e t a t i o n p l a c e s a n u n s u c c e s s f u l V W P a p p l i c a n ts e e k i n g a s y l u m i n th e s a me pos i t i on a s othe ra l i e ns w ho a r r i ve a tthe bor de rw i thoutva l i d e ntr y doc um e nt s a nd w h o s e a s y lu m c la im s a r e r e f e r r e d to th e I J . S e e , e .g ., D - M u h u m e d v . A tt’y G e n ., 388 F . 3d 814, 815- 816 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( r e vi e w i ng de ni a l of a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l of

i na dm i s s i bl e a l i e n s t oppe d a tthe bor de rw i th f r a udul e ntOur jurisdiction over thedenial of a sylum ex tends to Nreka ’s asy lum-relate d claims of 8 withholding of removal under the I NA and CAT. See8 C.F.R. 208.2(c) (3)( i) (limiting the scope of re view in asylum-only

proce eding s to “a de termination of whe ther the alien is eligible f or asylum or withholding or de fer ral of removal, and whether asylum shall be grante d in the exercise of

discretion.”) . 12 e ntr y doc um e nt s ) ; s e e a l s o A s y l um S e e ke r s i n E xpe di t e d R e m ova l , R e por tof the U . S . C om m ’ n o n Int ’ l R el i gi ou s F re edom , at52 -53 (desc ri bi ng j ud i ci al re vi ew a v a ila b le to in a d m is s ib le a lie n s w h o s e a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n s a r e r e f e r r e d to a n I J ) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 5(b) (des cr i bi ng re fe rr al t o IJ of a l i ens f rom expedi t ed re m ov al p r o c e e d in g s to r e g u la rr e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s ) . T h e r e is n o th in g in th e V W P s ta tu te t o i ndi c a t e tha tuns uc c e s s f ul V W P a ppl i c a nt s s houl d be tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y tha n a ny othe ri na dm i s s i bl e a l i e n s t oppe d a tthe bor de rw ho ha s e s t a bl i s he d s uf f i c i e nt c r e di bl e f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on t o be r e f

e r r e d t o a n I J f

ora he a r i ng. 8 B . A sy l um and W i thh ol di ng of R em ov al T h is C o u r t r e v ie w s o n ly th e d e c is io n o f th e B I A , “e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s opi ni on. ” A l N a j j a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). B ec au se th e B IA in th is ca se “ad o p ted an d af firm ed ” th e I J’s de c i s i on, thi s C our tw i l l r e vi e w the I J ’ s a na l y s i s a s i f i tw e r e the B I A ’ s . I d. T o t he ext entthatthe B IA ’ s ( or IJ ’ s) deci si on w as base d o n a l egal de t e r m i na t i on, r e vi e w i s de novo. S e e M oha m m e d v. A s hc r of t , 261 F . 3d 1244, 1247- 48 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he I J ’ s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i on tha ta n a l i e n i s not13

e nt i t l e d t o a s y l um m us tbe uphe l d i f i ti s s uppor t e d by “ r e a s ona bl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e o n th e r e c o r d c o n s id e r e d a s a w h o le .” A n tip o v a v . A tt’y G e n ., 392 F . 3d 1259, 1261 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m a r ks om i t t ed). In thi s c as e, atthe end o f the di sc ussi on of the evi dence, the IJ concl ud ed as f o llo w s : [ T ] hi s C our tf

i nds the r e s ponde nt ’ s a r r i va l i n the c ountr y by us e of f r a u d , h is te s tim o n y , a n d th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d to b e in s u f f ic ie n t to m e e thi s bur de n of

pr oof , a nd thi s C our tf

i nds tha thi s a ppl i c a t i on f or pol i t i c a l a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f

pur s ua ntt o the T o r tu r e C o n v e n tio n s h o u ld b e d e n ie d a n d a r e h e r e b y d e n ie d . I J O r d e ra t 1 1 . W e not e thatN re ka di d n otpres entany f al se do cum ent s t o t he IJ i n sup po rt o f h i s cl ai m . R ath er, th e IJ’ s referen ce t o frau d rel at ed t o N rek a’ s u se o f th e fal se S w edi sh pass po rtt o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es . W e i ni t i al l y obser ve i n t hi s r egar d tha tdoc um e nt s t o f

a c i l i t a t e tr a ve l orga i n e ntr y i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s c a nnoti n a nd of them se l ves be use d as the basi s t o d eny a sy l um . A s r ec og ni ze d b y the B IA i n In r e O - D , 21 I . & N . D e c . 1079 ( B I A 1998) , “ the r e m a y be r e a s ons , f ul l y c ons i s t e nt w i th t he cl ai m of as yl um , thatw i l l ca use a pers on t o p osse ss fa l se do cum ent s, such a s the c r e a t i on a nd us e of a f a l s e doc um e ntt o e s c a pe pe r s e c ut i on by f a c i l i t a t i ng tr a ve l . ” I d. a t1083; a c c or d A ki nm a de v. I N S , 196 F . 3d 951, 956 ( 9th C i r . 1999)We n ote , h ow e ve r, that th eIJ could c e rt a inly havebe e n c le arer a s to wh e ther h ewa s in 9 fac t making a

n adver se credibility

deter mination. 14 (a sy l um appl i ca nt ’ s use of fr audu l entdo cum ent s t o g ai n ent ry i nt o t he U ni t ed S t at es “ can n o tserv e as a b asi s fo r an ad v erse cred i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n ”); see al so i d. (m aki ng com pari son t o t he di st i nct i on betw ee n fal se st at em ent s that“ i nv ol ve [] the heartof the as yl um cl ai m , ” w hi ch af fe ctcr edi bi l i ty, and fal se st at em ent s that a r e o n ly “in c id e n ta l” to th e c la im , w h ic h d o n o t) . N ev er th eles s, w e a ff

irm b ec au se su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e I J’s co n cl u si o n th atN rek a d i d n o tm eeth i s b u rd en o f p ro o f o f est ab l i sh i n g th ath e i s a

“ r e f uge e ” a s de f

i ne d unde rthe I N A . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ; I N S v. C ard o za-F o n seca, 4 8 0 U . S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 7 -2 8 (1 9 8 7 ). In l i g h to f th e IJ’ s ex p ress c o n c e r n s a b o u tth e c r e d i b i l i ty o f N r e k a ’ s t e s t i mo n y o n k e y e l e me n t s o f th e c l a i m, 9 a nd N r e ka ’ s f

a i l ur e t o r e butthe s e w i th s uf f i c i e ntc or r obor a t i ng e vi de nc e a nd e xpl a na t i on, i tc a nnotbe s a i d tha tthe e vi de nc e c om pe l s the c onc l us i on tha the s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on i n the D P ortha the h a s a “w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r ” th a t h is p o litic a l o p in io n w ill c a u s e f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . I N S v . E lia s - Z a c a r ia s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 & n .1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; S e p u lv e d a v . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s uppor t s the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tN r e ka i s not ent i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A or C A T . B ec ause N re ka has15

fai l ed t o est ab l i sh el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m , h e h as l i k ew i se fai l ed t o est ab l i sh e l i gi bi l i ty f

orthe s e othe rf

or m s of r e l i e f . S e e A l N a

j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1292- 93 ( w h e n “ a n a p p l i c a n ti s u n a b l e t o me e tth e ‘ w e l l - f o u n d e d f e a r ’ s t a n d a r d f

o ra s y l u m, he i s ge ne r a l l y pr e c l ude d f r om qua l i f

y i ng f ore i the ra s y l um orw i thhol di ng of depo rt at i on ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed). A cc o rd in g ly, b ec au se w e a ff irm th e I J’s d ec isio n o n all claim s, N re k a’s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D.