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 10-14-2008 

# Gyamt so 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 . 07-3559

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 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 " Gyamts o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 371. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/371I M G - 189 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- 3559

___________ T AS HI GYAMTS O, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 98- 586- 979) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

O ct ober8, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2008

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM P eti ti o n er T ash i G y am tso, al lege d lya n ati v e o f T ibet an d cit izen o f th e P eo p le’s R epubl i c of Chi na, fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew of the dec i s i on of the B oar d of2

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l of the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ( I J ) deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Fort he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on for r e v i e w. W e assum e t he p art i es’ fam i l i ari t yw i th the und erl y i ng fact s i n thi s case and, thu s, w e s um m ar i ze onl yt he pert i nentpr ocedur al hi s t ory . G y amt s o ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , p re se n tin g h im se lf a s N g a w a n g B h u tia, a n In d ian c iti z e n w ith a v a lid I ndi an pas s por tand B - 1 t our i s tvi s a. L es s than a y earl at er , G y amt s o fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on foras y l um , cl ai m i ng t hathi s I ndi an pas s por tand t our i s tvi s a w er e obt ai ned byfr aud and thathe w as T as hi G y amt s o, a Ti bet an nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C hi na s eeki ng r efuge i n t he U ni t ed St at es . H e al l eged thathe fl ed t o I ndi a fr om T i bet w i th hi s w i fe a nd thr ee c hi l dr en bec aus e he w as per s ecut ed foradvoca t i ng fr eedom of re lig io n a n d f

re e d o m f ro m C h in e se ru le. H e sa id th a t h e f e a re d f u tu re p e rse c u tio n if r etur ned t o C hi na. O n N ovember12, 2004, t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng G y amt s o w i t h bei ng s ubj ectt o r emoval underI m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct§ 237( a) ( 1) ( A ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( A ) , forarr i vi ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i thoutan i m m i gr antvi s a orot herval i d t r avel document s . G y amt s o admi t t ed the char ges and conc eded r emovabi l i t y . O n D ece m ber15, 2005, fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) deni ed G y amt s o’ s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef a nd or der ed hi m r emovedSect i on 101( a) ( 3) of the R E A L I D A ctal l ow s the tr i erof fa ctt o cons i derany 1 i nco nsi st ency , i naccu racyor fal sehoo d in an asy l um app l i cant’ s w ri t t en o r or al st at em ents , r egar dl es s of w hethert heygo “t o t he hea r tof the appl i cant ’ s cl ai m s , ” butthi s pr ovi s i on “appl i es onl yt o cas es w her e the appl i cantappl i ed foras y l um orot herr el i ef a ft erM ay11, 2005, ” and a ccor di ngl ydoes notappl yi n t hi s cas e. C hukw u v. A t t orneyG ener al , 484 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 3 to In d ia. T h e B IA a d o p ted a n d a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n a n d d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A unders ect i on 242( a) ( 1) of the IN A , 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). W h ere , as h ere , the B IA ex p resslyad o p ts th e IJ’s d ec isi o n an d d iscu sses so m e o f th e IJ’s rea so n ing , w e re v iew the d ec isi o n s o f b o th the IJ and the B I A . C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew the fa ctual f in d in g s o f

th e IJ , in c lu d in g a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f in d in g s , f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . U nderthe def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d forr evi ew , the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs m us tbe uphel d unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g IN A § 2 4 2 (b )( 4 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B )) . W e do notovertur n a cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng s i m pl ybeca us e w e w oul d r eac h a di ffe r ent co n clus ion . G ab u n iy a v . A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 6 3 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “In m aki ng a cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on, the I J m us tpr ovi de ‘ s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons [s ] ’ w hy the appl i canti s notcr edi bl e. ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . O nl yi ncons i s t enci es goi ng t o t he heartof G y amt s o’ s cl ai m w i l l be dee m ed t o compromi s e hi s cr edi bi l i t y . C hukw u v. 1 A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).4

G y amt s o chal l enges t he I J ’ s deni al of hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, cl ai m i ng, among otherthi ngs , t hatt he I J err ed i n m aki ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on bas ed on a di s cr epanc ybetw een hi s s uppl ement aryI - 589 s t at ementand hi s hear i ng t es t i m ony re g a rd in g th e g e n d e r o f h is c h ild re n . G y a m tso tes tifie d th a t h e f led C h in a a t n ig h t w ith h is s o n a n d th a t h e tra v e led to L h a sa w ith h is s o n th e f o llo w in g d a y . A .R . 9 9 -1 0 0 . In h is supp l em entaryI- 58 9 st at em ent, ho w ever, he st at es that he l eftC hina w i t h h i s y ou ng est daught er . A . R . 000170. T he B I A det erm i ned thatthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng w as su ff ici en tl ysu p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. T h e B IA h eld th at th e d iscrep an cyw en t t o the h ea rt o f G y a m tso ’s id e n tityc laim b e c a u se it ca lled in to q u e stio n th e C h in e se h o u se h o ld r egi s t er , w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatG y amt s o had thr ee da ught er s . W e ca nnots aythatany r e a s o n a b l e a d

j u d i c a t o rw 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 th e c o n t r a r y. G y amt s o cl ai m s t hatt he err ori n hi s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s chi l d’ s genderw as due t o faul t yt r ans l at i on. T he G overnm entcount er s thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der this argu m en t bec au se G y am tso f ail ed to raise ito n ap p ea l t o the B IA . T h e C o u rt ’s j ur i s di ct i on i s l i m i t ed under§ 242( d) ( 1) of the I N A , t o cas es w her e the pet i t i oner“has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e as of r i ght. . . . ” 8 U . S. C . 1252( d) ( 1) ; s ee A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594- 95 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A pet i t i onerhas exhaus t ed hi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es i f he r ai s es al l i s s ues befor e the B I A . A l t hough t he exhaus t i on pr i nci pl e i s notappl i ed “i n a dr aconi an fa s hi on, ” “[ o] utof r es pectforthe admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s , w e w i l l notr equi r e the B I A t o gues s w hi ch i s s ues have be en5

pr es ent ed and w hi ch have not . ” Li n v. A t t orneyG ener al , N o. 06- 2883, 2008 W L 4 1 6 7 0 3 2 , at * * 4 & 5 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 11 , 2 0 0 8 ). E v e n if a p e tit io n e r d o e s n o t ex h a u st a cl ai m , thi s C our tm ays t i l l have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i deri t , i f the B I A s ua s pont e addr es s ed the i s s ue on i t s m er i t s . L i n, 2008 W L 416032, at*6. W e conc l ude thatt he B I A w as notgi ven s uffi ci entnot i ce of the fa ul t ytr ans l at i on i s s ue. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he onl yar gum entG y amt s o r ai s ed i n hi s not i ce of appea l and i n hi s br i ef t o t he B I A r egar di ng t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as that the g en d er d iscrep an cyfin d ing w as n o t m aterial to h is asy lum claim . M o reo v er, th e B IA di d notr eac h t he fa ul t yt r ans l at i on i s s ue s ua s pont e i n i t s or der . T hus , w e l ack j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e u n e x h a u s t e d c l a i m. G y amt s o al s o cont ends t hatt he I J and B I A err ed i n rul i ng thathe fa i l ed t o pr ove hi s i dent i tyas a nat i ve of Ti betand C hi nes e ci t i zen. G y amt s o admi t t ed atthe r emoval h e a ri n g th a t th e In d ia n p a s s p o rt w a s v a lid f o r a p e rs o n n a m e d N g a w a n g B h u tia , a B uddhi s tm onk w ho i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, and he a s s ert ed thathe w as not N gaw ang B hut i a. G y amt s o t es t i fi ed thathe obt ai ned the I ndi an pas s por tand vi s a fr om an e m p lo y e e o f

th e In d ian P a ss p o rt A g e n c y , an d h e e x p lain e d th a t h e d id n o t h a v e h is C h in e se Id e n tific a tio n c a rd b e c a u se h e w a s to ld to g e t rid o f it b e f o re h e re a c h e d N e p a l. T o s uppor thi s as y l um cl ai m , G y amt s o pr oduced a T i bet an G r een I dent i fi cat i on B o o k let N o . 0 7 0 2 (G re e n B o o k ) th a t w a s is su e d b yth e O f f ice o f T ib e t in N e w Y o rk in Sept ember2004; a l ett erfr om t he O ffi ce of T i betconfi r m i ng thatG y amt s o “i s a bona f i deT he governm ental s o s ubm i t t ed G y amt s o’ s C hi nes e hous ehol d r egi s t erand the 2 T i bet an G r een Book forfor ens i cs anal y s i s . T he FD L R eporti ndi cat es thatther e i s an “att ache d m emora ndum , ” expl ai ni ng w hythe l ab di d notexami ne the pas s por tand G r een B ook phot ogr aphs . A . R . 115. N ei t herthe pas s por tnorthe mem or andum i s partof the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. In h is b rie f

, G y a m tso d o e s n o t sp e c if ica llyc h a llen g e th e re liab ili tyo f th e F D L re p o rt, 3 and thus , he has w ai ved the i s s ue i n thi s appea l . “A n i s s ue i s w ai ved unl es s a part yr ai s es 6 T i betan r efug ee”; a ph otograph o f G y am t so w i t h h i s w i fe i n T i bet; and a veri fi ed C hinese hous ehol d r egi s t er , i s s ued i n O ct ober1998, i ndi cat i ng, among ot herthi ngs , thathe w as b o rn in T ib e t. O th e r e v id e n c e h e su b m itt e d in c lu d e d a p h o to o f h is w if e a n d c h ild re n in I ndi a; phot os of hi m s el f part i ci pat i ng i n demonstr at i ons fora fr ee Ti beti n I ndi a; a l et t er f ro m th e P re sid e n t o f

th e C h u sh i G a n g d ru k , co n f irm in g th a t G y a m tso ’s f a th e r a n d u n c le w er e i n the ant i - C hi nes e arm y ; and uns w orn aff i davi t s fr om tw o peopl e w ho knew of G y a m tso ’s f

a m ilyin T ib e t. T h e g o v e r n me n ts u b mi t t e d t h e “ As s e s s me n tt o Re f e r ” p r e p a r e d b yth e DHS A s y l um O ffi cerand the For ens i c D ocument s L abor at oryr epor t( FD L R epor t ) anal y zi ng the p h y sical pro p erti es o f th e In d ian p assp o rtan d v isa th at G y am tso u sed to o b tai n en try i nto the U nit ed S t at es. 2 W e con cl ud e t hat s ub st anti al evidence sup po rt s the IJ’ s fi nd i ng that G y am t so i s a ci t i zen of

I ndi a. A n as y l um appl i cant ’ s nat i onal i t yi s a thr es hol d ques t i on i n det erm i ni ng hi s el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um and i ti s hi s bur den t o es t abl i s h. See W angchuc k v. D ep’ tof H om el and Secur i t y , 448 F. 3d 524, 528 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ; 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( a) . H er e, t he I J r eas onabl yr el i ed on the FD L R epor t , w hi ch conc l uded thatthe al l egedl yfr audul ent 3i ti n i t s openi ng br i ef, and fort hos e purpos es , a pas s i ng r efe r ence t o an i s s ue . . . w i l l not

s uffi ce t o br i ng t hati s s ue bef or e thi s cour t . ” Labor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on v. Fost erW heel er C o rp., 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted). 7 I ndi an pas s por tw as i n fac tauthent i c bec aus e i t“conf or m s t o compar abl e genui ne s peci m ens on fi l e i n t he FD L l i br ary , ” and be caus e ther e w as no phy s i cal evi dence of page orphot ogr aph s ubs t i tut i on orof al t er at i ons i n bi ogr aphi c dat a. See A . R . 115. T he I J al s o not ed thatt he U ni t ed St at es E m bas s yw oul d i s s ue a tr avel vi s a onl yi f ther e w as c r e d i b l e v e r i f

i c a t i o n o f

G ya m t s o ’ s i d e n t i t y. G y amt s o ar gues t hathe pr ovi ded per s uas i ve evi dence of hi s ow n i dent i t yand ci t i zenship. H ow ever, t he IJ and B IA plausi blyqu est i on ed the vali dityof the C hinese hous ehol d r egi s t erbeca us e i tcoul d notbe authent i cat ed bythe FD L and bec aus e the r egi s tr at i on num bercont ai ned t oo m anydi gi t s forhous ehol d r egi s t er s thatw er e i s s ued pr i ort o O ct ober1999. T he FD L R eportupon w hi ch the I J r eas onabl yr el i ed, s t at ed that the Ti bet an G r een Book coul d notbe authent i cat ed. G y am tso a rgu es th at, b yh o lding that h e w as a cit izen o f In d ia, the IJ a n d B IA rea so n ed erro n eo u slythat Ind ia ha d ex tend ed h im , as a T ibetan ref u g ee , an o ff

er o f f irm rese tt lem en t, o r pe rm an en t l eg al st atus in In d ia. S ee A p p ell an t’ s B ri ef , 1 6 -17 . T h e IJ rul ed thatt he val i d pas s por tand vi s a s how ed thathe w as a nat i ve of I ndi a, nota nat i ve of T i bet . A tbes t , G y amt s o’ s document aryevi dence cr eat ed a que s t i on abouthi s name, n a tio n a lity , an d c iti z e n sh ip . T h e b u rd e n w a s o n h im to re so lv e th e q u e stio n o f h is i dent i ty , w hi ch he f

ai l ed t o do. See 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( a) ; O s or i o v. I . N . S. , 18 F. 3d 1017,8

1 0 2 1 -22 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the id e n tityf in d in g is s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial re c o rd e v id e n c e a n d is di s pos i t i ve of G y amt s o’ s as y l um cl ai m . A s G y amt s o i s notabl e t o m ake outan as y l um c laim , h e n e c e ss a rilyis u n a b le to sa tisf yth e h ig h e r sta n d a rd re q u ire d to su c c e e d o n h is cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and forr el i ef unde rthe C A T beca us e theyr es ton the s ame factual pr edi cat e. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g 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.