2009 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 8-13-2009 

# G arde r 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 . 08-2972

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_2009

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 2009 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 " G ar de r v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 824. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/824NOT 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. 08- 2972 S ERGE Y VI ADI M I ROVI CH GARDER, 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 B I A N o. A 97- 478- 667 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e D avi d W . C r os l and) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t5, 2009 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, C H A G A R E S and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t13, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M. Pet i t i onerSer geyV i adi m i r ovi ch G ar der , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of R us s i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of2

re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e U n ite d 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 ” ). F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l g r a n tGa r d e r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. G ar derent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a non- i m m i gr antvi s a i n 2002. H e fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef, as s ert i ng thathe had b ee n p erse cu ted b ec au se o f h is B ap ti st faith . H is ap p li ca ti o n stat ed that h e a n d m em b ers o f h is re lig io u s c o m m u n ityw e re re p e a ted lya ttac k e d b yC o ss a c k s a n d R u ss ian n e o -N a z is f o r p ro s e lytiz in g . A thi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs , G ar dert es t i fi ed thathe w as at t acke d atl eas tni ne t i m es fr om 1996 t hr ough 2002 due t o hi s r el i gi on byC os s acks and the R us s i an N at i onal U n ity(“ R N U ” ). H e d id n o t cla im to k n o w m u c h a b o u t th e g ro u p s a n d th e ir re latio n sh ip w i t h t he governm entbutdes cr i bed the C os s acks as a “f r ee or gani zat i on” thatcons i der t hemsel ves a “vol unt eerguar d. ” ( A . R . 91. ) H e al s o s t at ed thattheybehave d l i ke the p o l i c e a n d “ g u a r d e d o r d e r . ” ( A. R. 1 0 0 . ) He d e s c r i b e d th e RNU a s n a t i o n a l i s t s . ( A. R. 9 6 .) G ar dert es t i fi ed thathe w as i nj ur ed dur i ng m anyof the att acks and thathe s ought me d i c a l a t t e n t i o n a f

t e rt h r e e o f

t h e Co s s a c k a t t a c k s a n d o n e o f th e RN U a t t a c k s . He s t at ed thataft era 1996 i nci denti n a park i n w hi ch he s uffe r ed a w r i s ti nj ury , brui s es , and bl oodyknees , he w as tur ned aw ayfr om a medi cal cent erbeca us e theydi d nothave ga uze orbandage s . I n M ar ch 1999, G ar derat t ended a y outh m eet i ng atthe home of a r el i gi ous3

c o m m u n itym e m b e r, B ro th e r G e o rg y . C o ss a c k s e n ter e d th e h o u se , ac c u se d th e B a p tists o f b rainw ash ing y o u n g p eo p le, d rag g ed them to the str ee t and w h ipp ed them . G ard er’s l eg w as i nj ur ed, and he a nd ot her s w er e t aken byambul ance t o t he hos pi t al , w her e he w as t r eat ed on an outpat i entbas i s fors ever al day s . I n D ece m ber2001, G ar derw as s t abbed by s o m e o n e to w h o m h e w a s p ro s e lytiz in g a n d w a s g iv e n a b a n d a g e a t a tr a u m a c e n te r. F i nall y , i n F ebruary20 02 , he st at ed thathe w as treat ed b ya chir op ract or— w ho w as a me mb e ro f

h i s r e l i g i o u s c o mm u n i t y— a f t e rh e wa s s l a mm e d t o th e g r o u n d b yth e RN U and s uffe r ed thr ee di s l ocat ed vert ebr ae. G ar derdi d not , how ever , s ubm i tanym edi cal document at i on i n hi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . N ordi d G ar ders eek medi cal at t ent i on aft er anyof the otherat t acks , i ncl udi ng t hos e i n w hi ch he: ( 1) w as s t ruck i n t he che ek w i t h a w hi p ( 1998) , ( 2) fai nt ed af t era C os s ack hi thi m i n t he hea d ( 2000) , and ( 3) w as beat en w i t h w hips and st i cks (200 1). H e exp l ai ned that he di d n ot s eek m edical help becau se th e re w e re n o tre a tm e n t ce n ter s n e a rb y , itw a s e a sie r to g o h o m e , o r b e c a u se o th e r p e o p le h e lp e d h im . G ar deral s o l ar gel yavoi ded r epor t i ng the att acks t o t he pol i ce. H e s t at ed thataft er t he 1996 att ack, he t ol d t he pol i ce w ho w er e patr ol l i ng the park w hathad happe ned, but t hatt heyj us tt ol d hi m t o go hom e. ( A . R . 94. ) B r otherG eor gy ’ s par ent s r epor t ed t o the pol i ce the i nci dentw hi ch s entG ar dert o t he hos pi t al , butG ar derdoes notbel i eve thatt he po l i ce fo l l ow ed u p o n the com plai nt. (A . R . 10 0-01.) A dd i t i on al l y , w hen a B apti stpri est w a s a tta c k e d b yC o s s a c k s , s e v e ra l p e o p le (i n c lu d in g G a rd e r) s ig n e d a p o lic e re p o rt .4

(A .R . 1 0 3 -0 4 .) G a rd e r s ta te d th a t th e re w a s “ n o re s u lt” to th is p o lic e c o m p la in t, e ith e r. ( A . R . 104. ) H e t es t i fi ed thathe di d notr epor tthe otheri nci dent s t o t he pol i ce f orvar i ous r eas ons , i ncl udi ng t he t i m e of da yt hatthe att ack oc curr ed, the part i cul art ow n w her e the at t acks occurr ed, and the unava i l abi l i t yof a t el ephone. A ddi t i onal l y , he s t at ed the pol i ce w oul d nothel p beca us e theyt r eat ed B apt i s t s poor l y , and bec aus e he of t en coul d not i dent i fyhi s at t acke r s . H e di d nots ubm i tanyof the pol i ce r epor t s as evi dence

— expl ai ni ng t hathe di d notobt ai n t hem becaus e he di d notthi nk he w oul d need th e m . I n t he s um m erof 2001, aft erhe had a l r eadybeen a t t acke d s ever al t i m es , G ar der t r avel ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es and w or ked i n O cea n C i t y , M ary l and. H e di d notappl yfor as y l um att hatt i m e bec aus e he w as unaw ar e thathe coul d do s o and bec aus e he hope d t he s itu a tio n in R u s s ia w o u ld im p ro v e . S o , h e re tu rn e d to R u s s ia a t th e e n d o f th e s u m m e r. A f ter h e re tu rn e d to R u ss ia, h e w a s a ttac k e d a t lea st tw o m o re tim e s a n d lef t h is uni ver s i t y . H e t es t i fi ed thathi s fami l yfi nal l yconvi nced hi m thathe nee ded t o l eave R us s i a, and thathe thus came back t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 2002. A l t hough G ar ders et t l ed i n s out hern N ew J er s ey , he j oi ned the M ary l and chur ch thathe had a t t ended the pr evi ous s um m er . G ar ders ubm i t t ed a l et t erfr om the chur ch’ s pr eac hers t at i ng thathe had be en a m embers i nce f

al l 2003 ( al t hough t he l ett erw as dat ed M ar ch 2003) . G ar dert es t i fi ed that he att ends chur ch as oft en as pos s i bl e butthathe does notpart i ci pat e i n evange l i cal a c tiv itie s in th e U n ite d S ta te s .5

I gorK ot l ert es t i fi ed as an expe r tr egar di ng the C os s acks and R N U and the t r eatm entof B apt i s t s i n R us s i a. H e s t at ed thatthe C os s acks ar e an “ ethnogr aphi c gr oup of the R us s i an peopl e” w ho ar e “ve r ynat i onal i s t i c, very , verypr o- governm ent , and pr ochur ch peopl e. ” ( A . R . 168, 170. ) W hen as ked i f ther e w as anyconnec t i on betw een the C o ss a c k s a n d th e R u ss ian g o v e rn m e n t, K o tler s tate d th a t th e C o ss a c k s a re “ c o n sid e re d to be cl os e al l i es of the governm ent , ” and thatther e ar e s ever al ar eas — i ncl udi ng the St avapol r egi on w her e G ar deri s fr om — w her e “theyar e al l ow ed t o patr ol ar eas even w i t houtpol i ce t o m ai nt ai n or derand theyar e al l ow ed . . . t o carr ythei rw eapon a nd they e x p e rie n c e f

u ll su p p o rt o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t.” (A .R . 1 7 0 .) W h e n a sk e d w h a t “p a tro l” m ea n t, h e a n sw ere d : “t o m aintain o rde r . . . stop an d ca tchin g reb els. ” (A . R . 1 7 1 . ) O n O ctob er 2 3 , 2 0 0 6 , the IJ d en ied G ard er a ll req u ested reli ef ex ce p t fo r vo lun tary departur e. H e made an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, and found thatG ar derdi d not m eett he s t andar d foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , orC A T r el i ef. T he B I A aff i r m ed th e IJ ’s d e n ia l o f

re lie f w ith o u t o p in io n o n J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 8 . T hr ough couns el , G ar dernow pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W her e, as her e, t he B I A aff i r m s the I J ’ s deci s i on w i t houtopi ni on, w e r evi ew t he I J ’ s deci s i on di r ect l yas t he fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on. D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d6

228, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew an I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs underthe “s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” s t andar d. L i n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . U nder t hi s s t andar d, “a f

actual det erm i nat i on w i l l be uphel d i f i ti s s uppor t ed by‘ r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ’ ” I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l t ernat i vel y , “w her e the age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i on i s bas ed on an i nacc ur at e per cept i on of the r ecor d, om i t t i ng pot ent i al l ys i gni fi cantfac t s , w e mayr emand forr econs i der at i on orr ehea r i ng, . . . or , i f ci r cumst ance s w arr anti t , a new hear i ng. ” T ia n -Y o n g C h e n v . IN S , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). O urr evi ew of the age ncy ’ s l egal concl us i ons i s de novo, and w e appl ythe pr i nci pl es of d e f e re n c e s e t f

o rt h in C h e v ro n U .S .A ., In c . v N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s D e f e n s e C o u n c il, I n c ., 467 U . S. 837 ( 1984) . L i n- Z heng, 557 F. 3d at155. T he I J det erm i ned thatG ar derdi d nots uffe rpas tper s ecut i on beca us e he di d not “s how t hathe w as pr evi ous l yper s ecut ed atthe hands of the governm entorper s ons the governm enti s unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o contr ol . ” Thi s deci s i on w as bas ed l ar gel yon t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatG ar derand K ot l erdes cr i bed the C os s acks and R N U as “fr ee or gani zat i on( s ) havi ng no connec t i on t o t he governm ent . ” H ow ever , w hi l e G ar ders t at ed t hathe di d notbel i eve the C os s acks w er e af fi l i at ed w i t h t he governm ent , he al s o as s ert ed t hatt heybehave d l i ke the pol i ce a nd “guar ded or der . ” A ddi t i onal l y , K ot l ert es t i fi ed that the C o ssac k s are “c o n side red to b e c lose all ies o f th e g o v ern m en t” an d that there are sev era l areas— inclu d ing the S tava p o l r eg ion w h ere G ard er is fro m — w h ere “the yare7

a llo w e d to p a tro l [ ] e v e n w ith o u t p o lice to m a in tain o rd e r a n d th e ya re a llo w e d . . . to ca rrytheir w ea p o n an d theyex p erien ce fu ll su p p o rto f th e g o v ern m en t. ” (A . R . 1 7 0 . ) T he I J t hus m i s char act er i zed the t es t i m onybyfi ndi ng thatG ar der“fa i l ed t o pr es entany t es t i m ony. . byhi s ow n t es t i m ony[or ] hi s expertw i t nes s ” thatthe governm entw as

“ u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n tro l th e C o ss a c k s o r R N U n a tio n a lists w h o a lleg e d ly per s ecut ed R es pondent s . ” T h e IJ a lso d e ter m in e d th a t G a rd e r’s c laim f a iled in p a rt b e c a u se , w h e n a sk e d to d o so b yth e c o u rt, h e d id n o t p ro v id e sp e c if ic in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g h is a ss e rtio n th a t h is fami l ycont i nued t o be per s ecut ed, and thataff i davi t s s ubm i t t ed byhi s m otherdi d not co rrob o rate this claim . (A . R . 3 5 . ) S ee A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3d C ir . 2001) ( A n appl i canti s expec t ed t o “corr obor at e fa ct s w hi ch ar e ce ntr al t o hi s cl ai m and e a silysu b

jec t to v e rif

ica tio n .” (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d )). T h is c o n c lu sio n is in c o rre c t in bot h r es pect s . Fi r s t , w hen r evi ew i ng the tr ans cr i ptw e found ne i t hert es t i m onybyG ar der cl ai m i ng t hathi s fami l ycont i nues t o be per s ecut ed norques t i oni ng bythe I J aboutat t acks on hi s fami l y . Second, one of G ar der ’ s m other ’ s aff i davi t s s t at es thatthei rfami l yhas “su ff ere d fro m the C o ssac k s” se v era l t im es sin ce G ard er left R u ssia. (A . R . 1 9 3 -94 . ) T hus , i f G ar deri s cl ai m i ng t hathi s fami l yi s bei ng per s ecut ed i n R us s i a, he has i nt r oduced e vi dence s uppor t i ng t hatas s ert i on, and i f he ne vert es t i fi ed t o s uch cont i nued per s ecut i on, he nee d nots uppl ycorr obor at i on.W e not e thatt he I J found G ar dert o be notcr edi bl e. T he I J s t at ed, w i t houtgi vi ng 1 anyexampl es , t hatG ar der ’ s t es t i m onyw as r i ddl ed w i t h i ncons i s t enci es , and he a ppear ed t o bas e the cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i n l ar ge parton G ar der ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de medi cal rec o rds d o cu m en ti n g h is i n juri es. T h u s, to the ex tent IJ fa il ed to “f o ll o w the B IA ’s avow ed pol i cyof cons i der i ng s epar at el ythe i s s ues of cr edi bi l i t yand fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de co rrob o rati o n , ” the ad v erse cre d ibil ityan aly sis i s also u n so u n d . S ee C h u k w u v . A tt ’y G e n ., 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 8 T her e maybe val i d r eas ons fordeny i ng G ar der ’ s appl i cat i on forr el i ef. N e v e rth e les s, th e IJ’ s m isc h a ra c ter iza tio n o f a t lea st tw o sa lien t issu e s u n d e rm in e h is d e c isio n a n d w e a re u n a b le to a d e q u a telyc o n sid e r w h e th e r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts t he deni al G ar der ’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef. See 1 T i an- Y ong C hen, 359 F. 3d at127- 28 ( r emandi ng B I A opi ni on due t o i t s “funda m ent al err or ” of i gnor i ng a s i gni fi cantas pectof the pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony ) . B eca us e i ti s uncl ear w hethert he I J w oul d have r eac hed the s ame r es ul thad he notm i s cons t rued the t es t i m ony and evi dence , w e w i l l r emand t he ca s e t o t he B I A w i t h i ns t ruct i ons fori tt o r emand t o t he I J t o r e e v a l u a t e t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe I J di d notadequa t el ycons i der G a rd e r’s a p p lica tio n f

o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, an d C A T re lief. B e c a u se o f its err or s , w e ca nnotacc epti t s det erm i nat i on thatG ar derfai l ed t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on o ra f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l g r a n tGa r d e r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, vacate the B IA ’s decis i on , and rem and the case fo r fur t her proceedings.