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

8-22-2008 

# Rr anc i 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3327

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

" R r anc i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 574. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/574H onor abl e J ane A

. R est an i, C h ie f J udge, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 06- 3327

N A Z M I R R A N C I,

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 T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

( N o. A 96- 077- 564)

A r gued D ece m ber11, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

R E ST A N I , C hi ef J udge

*2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t22, 2008) R ex C hen, E s qui r e ( A r gued) C atho li c C h arit ies o f th e A rch d ioce se o f N ew ark 976 B r oad St r eet N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el forPet i t i oner G r egoryG

. K at s as A ct i ng A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on D avi d V

. B ernal A s s i s t antD i r ect or , O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on R icha rd M

. E v an s, E sq u ir e A ndr ew C

. M acLachl an, E s qui r e ( A r gued) S u san K

. H o u ser, E sq u ir e U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044- 0000

C ouns el forR es pondent

B aherA

. A zmy , E s qui r e ( A r gued) L o ri N esse l, E sq u ir e M ee tal i Jai n , E sq u ir e M au ra C aro sell i, E sq u ir e3 Set on H al l L aw School C ent erforSoci al J us t i ce I nt ernat i onal H um an R i ght s / R ul e of Law Pr oj ect 833 M cC ar t erH i ghw ay N ew ark, N J 07102 C o u n se l f

o r A m icu s-A p p e llan ts

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge N azmi R r anci , a nat i ve of A l bani a, s eeks r el i ef f r om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or dert hathe be r emoved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es . H e pet i t i ons ourC our tforr evi ew o f a d ec isi on byt he B oard of

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s di s m i s s i ng hi s appea l and decl i ni ng t o r eopen hi s cas e. W e dec i de w hether t he B I A err ed i n hol di ng t hathi s cas e ca nnotb e reope ned on the gr ound of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o uns el

. A s ub- i s s ue i s w hetheran al i en w ho s erves as a G overnm ent w i t nes s i n t he U ni t ed St at es can be r emoved t o hi s hom e countr yi f the per s on h e m ade a s t at ementort es t i fi ed aga i ns t has t hr eat ened hi s l i fe. T hi s r ai s es an i s s ue notaddr es s ed bef ore b y u s

— t he ext enta U ni t ed N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n re c e n tly ra tifie d b y C o n g re ss a f f e c ts r emoval i n t hi s cas e. W e gr antt he pe ti ti on and r emand t o theM u h o wa s a s i g n i f i c a n te n o u g h s mug g l e rt o me r i ta DOJ 1 p re s s re le a s e o n th e e v e n t o f h is g u ilty p le a . See Pr es s R el eas e, D O J , A l bani an M an Pl eads G ui lt y i n A l i en Sm uggl i ng C o n s p i r a c y ( M a y 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 ), a t 4 B IA for further proceedings.

I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory R r an ci p ai d a s m uggl i ng oper at i on t o br i ng hi m fr om A lban ia i n to th e U n it ed S tat es. H e arri v ed in T ex as i n Jan u ary 2 0 0 3 a f t e rt h e s m u g g l e r s h a d t a k e n h i m t h r o u g h I t a l y, V enez uela, C ol om bi a, E cuador , E l Sal vador , G uat emal a, and M exico. S ho rt l yaft er he cross ed the border t o the U nit ed S t at es, t he form erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat ion Ser vi ce ( now I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n f o r c e me n t ) d e t a i n e d h i m. T h e I NS i ni t i al l ys erv ed h im w ith a not i ce t o appea ri n J une 2003, aft er h e h a d b e g u n l i v i n g a n d w o r k i n g i n N e w J e r s e y. A ft e rr e c e i v i n g th e n o t i c e , Rr a n c i b e c a me a ma t er i al w i t nes s i n a cr i m i nal cas e aga i ns tR us t em M uho, a s m uggl erof i l l egal i m m i gr ant s and an a l l eged c hi eft ai n i n A l bani an o rg a n ize d c rim e . R ra n c i h a d h ire d M u h o to sm u g g le h im in to t he U nit ed Stat es. T he U

. S

. D epart m ent of Justic e (D O J) confi r m ed i n w r i t i ng t hatR r an ci “c ooper at ed w i t h the G overnm ent i n t hat he gave a s t at ementr egar di ng t he s m uggl i ng act i vi t i es ” of M uho and m ade hi m s el f avai l abl e t o t es t i fy

. M uho eventual l ypl ed gui l t y . T he D O J s t at ed tha t “M r . R r anci and 1h ttp ://w w w .u sd o j.go v /o p a /p r/2 0 0 3 /M a y/0 3

_ c rm

_ 2 9 3 .h tm (l ast v is ite d J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 ). 5 o th e r m a ter ial w itn e ss e s’ c o o p e ra tio n w a s a n im p o rta n t f a c to r in c o n v in c in g [ M u h o ] t o p lea d g u ilty .” L e tter f ro m A n n e M a rie Far r ar , T r i al A t t or ney , D om es t i c S ecur i t y Sect i on, U

. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, t o N at al e F. C ar abel l o, J r . , E s q. ( A pr i l 4, 2005) ( A pp. at 4 4 ) (h e re in a f

ter “ F a rra r L e tte r” ). In o rd e r th a t R ra n c i co u ld r emai n i n t he U ni t ed S t at es l egal l yw hi l e he c ooper at ed w i t h t he D O J, h e w as p aro led th rou g h A p ri l 20 0 4

. In J u n e 2 0 04, h o w ev er, on ce M u h o ’s ca se w as n o lon g er p en d ing an d R ran ci’s par ol e had e xpi r ed, t he IN S s erved R r anci w i t h a s econd not i ce t o appea r . I ts t at ed thathe w as s ubj ectt o r emoval un der § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at ional i t yA ct ( “I N A ”) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 11 8 2( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) , forent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es w i t houthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed.
I n M ar ch 2005, R r anci appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ec t i o n underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O t herC ruel , Inhum an orD egr adi ng T r eatm entorPuni s h m ent , D ec. 10, 1984, 1465 U

. N

. T

. S. 85 ( “C A T ”)

. A s s uppor t for hi s cl ai m of as y l um , he s t at ed thathe “fe ar [s ]

. . . bei ng ki ll ed fo r th e r eas on t hatI have he l ped [the U n ite d S tat es] a g ains t M r. M u h o ” a n d an asso ciate, “w h o are al l i ed t o t he A l bani an go v ern m ent
. ” R r anci al s o al l eged that M uho’ s henchmen had bee n as ki ng R r anci ’ s fami l yand fr i ends i n A l bani a abouthi s w her eabout s . I n a s w orn aff i davi tdat ed O ct ober31, 2005, R r anci al s o expl ai ned thathi s under s t andi ngN ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d expl ai ns how M uho l earned that 2 R ra n c i h a d te s tif

ie d a g a in s t h im

. A m i cicur i ae t he A s i an A m er i can Legal D efe ns e and Educat ion Fund, Fr os i na Inf o r m at i on N etw or k, T he I nt ernat i onal W om en’ s H um an R i ght s L aw C l i ni c of the C i t yU ni ver s i t yof N ew Y or k School of La w, t h e M u s l i m Ba r As s o c i a t i o n o f New Yo r k , a n d t he Sout h A s i an B arA s s oci at i on of N ew Jers ey , i nferfr om t he r ecor d t hatt he G overnm enti t s el f i nform ed M uho, perhaps dur i ng pl ea ne got i at i ons , t hatR r anci had m ade a s t at ementand w o u ld te s tif

ya g a in s t h im

. A m i ciC ur i ae B r. at 5

. B u t th e re co rd cont ai ns no di r ectevi dence thatthe G overnm entdi d s o. 6 f ro m th e D O J w a s th a t M u h o w o u ld b e re m o v e d to A lb a n ia “af t eraboutt w o m ont hs ” ( i

. e. , tw o m o n ths after h is co n v ict ion ). T h u s, R ra n c i b e liev e d th a t M u h o w o u ld h a v e re tu rn e d to A lban ia byth e ti m e h e (R ran ci) ap p li ed fo r asy lum

. (In addi t i on, by J ul y 2005, a fr i end of R r anci ’ s br othert ol d hi m of s p o ttin g M u h o in A lb a n ia .)
I n hi s O ct ober 2005 aff i davi t , R r anci t old o f h ear s ay ev iden ce o f th e thre at ag ains t his lif e . H e stated that M u h o ’s br ot herhad comm uni cat ed a l ethal t hr eatagai ns thi m t o a fr i end’ s father

. M uho’ s or gani zat i on m i ghthave c om m uni cat ed th e th re a t th is w a y , h e c o n jec tu re d , b e c a u se h is f

rie n d ’s f a m ily l i v e d c l o s e ra n d wo u l d h a v e be e n fa mi l i a rt o M u h o ’ s c r i me s yndi cat e. R r anci s t at ed t hat “M r . M uho’ s br others ai d thatI put R us t em [M uho] i n j ai l and thatw heneve rI r eturned t o A l bani a, R u s te m a n d h is f

ri e n d s w o u ld k ill m e .” 2R ranci ’s t w o d escr i pti on s of t h e D O J’ s al l eged prom i se 3 stan d in ten sion lega ll y(th o u g h p erh ap s n o t i n a lay m an ’s u n d e rsta n d in g ) b e c a u se d e c lin in g to re m o v e h im to A lb a n ia in p a rticu lar d o e s n o t f

o re c lo se th e p o ss ib ili tyo f re m o v in g h im to anot herf

o r e i g n c o u n t r y . Th u s , s t a t i n g t h a ta r e mov al pr ocee di ng w i l l be “w ai ved” i s not equi val entt o s t at i ng he

“ w o u ld n o t b e d e p o rt e d to A lb a n ia .” 7 R r anci al l eged i n hi s M ar ch 2005 as y l um appl i cat i on t hat t he D O J pr om i s ed t hat , i f he c ooper at ed w i t h i t s pr os ecut i on of M u h o , “a re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g w o u ld b e w a iv e d .” In h is O ct ober2005 aff

i davi t , R r anci des cr i bed hi s under s t andi ng of t h e DOJ ’ s s t a t e me n t s s l i g h t l yd i f f e r e n t l y , s t a t i n g t h a tt h e DOJ p led g e d h e “ w o u ld b e p ro tec ted ” a n d “ w o u ld n o t b e d e p o rte d to A lb a n ia.” H e a ss e rte d th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e c o o p e ra ted w ith

3 t h e Go v e r n me n t b u tf

o rt h e s e p r o mi s e s . F o ri t s p a r t , t h e DOJ s t at ed that“M r . R r anci w as notpr om i s ed that he w oul d be gi ven perm anentadmi s s i on i n excha nge forhi s cooper ati o n. ” Farr ar L e tte r, supra . A hear i ng befo re an I J t o deci de R r anci ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as schedul ed forA ugus t2005. H e had hi r ed a tto rn e yN a tale F . C a ra b e llo , Jr. to re p re se n t h im . D u rin g th e ir pr epar at i on fort he hea r i ng, C ar abel l o t ol d R r anci “thatthe C our tw oul d as k ques t i ons foraboutthr ee hour s , ” s ugges t i ng t hatt heyhad ant i ci pat ed a f ul l hear i ng r egar di ng R ran ci’s as y l um appl i cat i on. N onethel es s , befor e R r anci ent er ed the cour t r oom , C ara b el l o w enti n w i t houthi m and r eturned w i t h a8 r ecomm endat i on t hatR r anci s i m pl yacc eptvol unt arydepartur e. In h is a f f a d a v it, R r a n c i sta ted : “T h e law y e r a lso to ld m e th a t I coul d be arr es t ed i f I di d nots ayI w ant ed t o l eave . I w as afr ai d. I w as for ced i nt o t aki ng an agr eement t o l eave the U ni t ed St at es b e c a u s e th a t is w h a t th e la w y e r t o ld m e to d o a n d I w a s a f ra id .” T he G overnm entdi s put es t hi s char act er i zat i on, s t at i ng thatt he IJ asked R ranci w hat he w anted t o d o an d recei ved the respon se “I w an t t o leav e v o lun tari ly

. ” T h e IJ g ran ted v o lun tary departur e, gi vi ng R r anci th e opportuni t yt o l eave the U ni t ed St at es on hi s ow n unt i l D ece m ber 2005. I n t he al t ernat i ve, the I J or der ed hi m r emoved.
R athert han l eavi ng vol unt ar i l y , R r anci obt ai ned new (a lso h is c u rre n t) c o u n se l an d m o v e d to r e o p e n h is c a se in N ovember2005. H e ar gued that hi s pr i orcouns el ( C ar abel l o) had pr ovi ded i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance , w hi ch can pr ovi de a gr ound f o r r e o p e n in g a c a s e . See, e. g. , Zheng v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 98, 106 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. He a l s o a r g u e d th a tth e “ s t a t e - cr eat ed d a n g e r d o c trin e ,” w h ich w e d isc u ss b e lo w , p ro h ib ited h is r emoval t o A l bani a. T he I J deni ed the mot i on t o r eopen. R r anci appea l ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l i n J une 2006. R r anci now pet i t i ons ourC our tforr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct i on over fi nal or der s of r emoval under § 2 4 2 (a)(1) o f th e IN A , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). H ere , the IJ gr ant ed R r anci t he opt i on of vol unt arydepartur e unt i l D ece m ber9 20 0 5 b ut , i n t he al t ernat i ve, or der ed hi m r emoved t o A l bani a.
“ A n o r d e r o f

re m o v a l b e c o m e s f

in a l u p o n , in tera lia , ‘a d e t e r mi n a t i on b yt h e [ BI A] a f f i r mi n g s u c h o r d e r . ’ 8 U. S

. C. § 1101( a) ( 47) ( B ) ( i )

. ” Y us upov v. A t t ’

y G en. , 518 F. 3d 185, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. T he B I A ’ s di s m i s s al of R r anci ’ s appea l fr om t he I J ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen a m ount ed t o an af fi r m ance of th e o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. See i d. ( “The Supre m e C ourthas s peci fi ed t hatadmi ni s t r at i ve ord ers ar e fi nal w hen theym ark the

‘ cons um ma t i o n ’ o f

t h e a g e n c y ’ s d e c i s i o n- m aki ng p roc ess . . . . ”).
B eca us e the B I A iss ued an opi ni on, r athert han a sum m aryaffirm ance, w e revi ew t he B IA ’s (r at her t han t he IJ’ s) d e c is io n . Li v. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 0 0 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). W e l i mi t o u rr e v i e w t o th e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d , 8 U. S

. C. § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( A ), and t ake th e B IA ’s “ fi nd i ng s of fact [as] concl us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e ad judi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary , ” i d. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B )

. We r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of R r anci ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen unde rthe abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. I n other w or ds , t he B I A ’ s “deni al o f a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n m a y o n l y b e r e v e r s e d i f i ti s ‘ a rb i t r a r y, i r r at i onal , orcontr aryt o l aw . ’ ” F i l j a v. G onz al es , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2002) )

. F inally , w e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s l egal con cl usi on s de novo , i ncl udi ng both pur e ques t i ons of l aw and a p p lic a tio n s o f la w to u n d is p u te d f a c ts
. Fr ancois v. G onz al es , 4 4 8 F

. 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).R r anci t r i es t o di s t i ngui s h Kam ara as having d i fferentfact s, 4 butt he s ect i on of Ka m ara devot ed t o the s t at e- cr eat ed dange r e x c e p t i o n d o e s n o tr e l yo n t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f th a tc a s e . He a lso a rg u e s th a t Kam ar a conce r ned a “[c ] ons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o i m m i gr at i on s t atut es ” r atherthan an i ndi vi dual cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . Pet ’ r’ s B r . at17. B utt he t extof Kam ar a b e lies th is a ttem p t at a d istin c tio n : “ K a m a ra a rg u e s th a t in a d d iti o n to m i s appl y i ng t he pr oper l egal s t andar d t o hi s C A T pet i t i o n the B I A , i n i s s ui ng i t s fi nal or derof r emoval , vi ol at ed his rig h t to s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s undert he s t at e- cr eat ed dange r ex ce p ti o n . ” 4 2 0 F

. 3 d at 21 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 10 I I I . T he St at e- C reat ed D anger E x cept i on G ener a l l y , d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w d o e s n o t c r e a t e an a f f irm a tiv e o b lig a tio n f

o r th e G o v e rn m e n t t o p ro tec t p riv a te i ndi vi dual s fr om ot herpr i vat e i ndi vi dual s . B utt he s t at e- cr eat ed dangerexce pti on t o t hatrul e i m pos es on the G overnm ent“a cons t i tut i onal dut yt o pr ot ect a per s on agai ns t i nj ur i es i nfl i ct ed bya t hi r d- par t y w hen [the G overnm ent ] aff i r m at i vel ypl ace s t he person i n a p osi t i on of d a n g e r th e person w ou l d n ot otherw i se have f ace d. ” Kam ar a v. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 2 0 F

. 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). R ra n c i ar g u e s th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t, by se e k in g h is c o o p e ra tio n in M u h o ’s p ro se c u tio n a n d th e n o rd e rin g h is r emoval t o A l bani a ( w her e M uho, acc or di ng to the r ecor d, r es i des ) , has aff

i r m at i vel ypl ace d hi m i n danger

. T hi s ar gum ent fai l s as a mat t er of l aw . W e have s t at ed unequi vocal l ythat“the s t at e- cr eat ed dange rexce pt i on has no pl ace i n ouri m m i gr at i on j ur i s prudence

. ” I

d. at217. 411 F u rt h e rm o re , Kam ara ’s a p p lica b ili tyis b e sid e th e p o in t. Pr o cedur al l ys peaki ng, R r anci ’ s cl ai m t hatt he s t at e- cr eat ed d a n g e r e x c e p ti o n sh o u ld a p p lyto h im w a s n o t an a p p ro p ria te gr ound fora mot i on t o reo pen. A per t i nentB I A r egul at i on st at es: A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs

s hal l s t at e the new fac t s thatw i l l be pr oven ata hear i ng t o be hel d i f the m ot i on i s gr ant ed and s hal l be s uppor t ed byaff

i davi t s oro ther evi d en ti arym at er i al

. . . . A m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs s hal l n otbe gr ant ed unl es s i tappea r s t o t he B oar d t hatevi dence s oughtt o be off ered i s m at er i al and w as not avai labl e and c oul d nothave be en d is cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe f o rm e r h e a ri n g . . . . 8 C

. F. R

. § 1 0 03. 2( c) ( 1)

. R r anci ’ s M ar ch 2005 as y l um a p p lica tio n se t o u t h is co n c e rn s a b o u t th e d a n g e r w a iti n g f o r h im in A lban ia as a resu lt o f h is co o p era ti o n w ith the G o v ern m en t’ s pr os ecut i on of the s m uggl erM uho. H is s ubs equentO ct ober 2 0 0 5 a f f i d a v i ta c c o mp a n y i n g h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n a d d e d s o me d et ai l , butm ade no a l l egat i on of new fac t s t hatar os e betw een t he A ugus t2005 hear i ng befor e the I J and the N ovember m ot i on. T hus , R r anci ’ s s t at e- created da ngercl ai m di d not12 sa tisf ythe B IA reg u lat ion ’s req u ir em en t of “n ew fa cts” f

o r a m ot i on t o r eopen. T o r eopen hi s cas e, R r anci m us tr el yon t he al l egat i on t hathi s pr i orcouns el w as i neff ect i ve. I V . I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel
R r anci cl ai m s thathi s pr i or couns el , C ar abel l o, pr ovi ded hi m w i t h i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance athi s init i al hear i ng befor e the IJ in A u g u st 20 0 5

. In a re late d a rg u m e n t, R ra n c i a lleg e s tha t h is a c c e p t a n c e o f

v o l u n t a r y d e p a r tu r e w a s n o ti n f a c t v o l u n t a r y, b ec au se C ara b ell o h ad frigh tene d h im into a cc ep ti n g that fo rm of r el i ef. O u r C our thas r ecogni zed thati neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n se l in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s v io late s th e F if th A m e n d m e n t’ s g u a ra n te e o f d u e p ro c e s s o f la w . Fa d iga v. A tt ’y G en. , 4 8 8 F

. 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )

. We h a v e o u t l i n e d t wo s et s of r equi r ement s, o ne pr ocedur al and one s ubs t ant i ve, t hat c laim s o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e m u st m e e t. A . A p p li ca ti o n o f L oz ada ’ s P roce dural R equi rem ent s to R r a n c i’s C la im O urC our thas es s ent i al ly adopt ed the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s t hatt he B I A devel oped fori neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance o f -c o u n s e l c la im s . I

d. T o pr ocee d w i t h s uch a cl ai m , the a lleg e d ly a g g rie v e d p e rso n m u st (1 ) pr o v id e a n a f f id a v it at t es t i ng t o t he r el evant fac t s , ( 2) i nform form er couns el of the a lleg a tio n s an d a llo w h im a n o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d , an d (3 ) “ if i t i s as s er t ed t hat pr i or couns el ’ s handl i ng of the ca s e i nvol ved13 a v io latio n o f e th ica l o r l e g a l re sp o n sib ili ties , the m o tio n sh o u ld re f lec t w h e th e r a co m p lain t h a s b e e n f iled w ith a p p ro p ria te d isc ip lin a rya u th o rities re g a rd in g su ch represent at io n , an d if n o t, w hynot
. ” I

n r e Loz ada , 1 9 I. & N

. D ec . 6 3 7 , 6 3 9 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ).
R r anci ’ s m ot i on to reopen ea s i l ym ett he fi r s tpr ong by i ncl udi ng t he s w or n aff i davi tdat ed O ct ober31, 2005. T hough mo s to f t h e a f f i d a v i tf o c u s e s o n t h e me r i t s o f

h i s a s y l u m c l a i m, the f inal tw o p ara g rap h s ex p lai n the c ir cu m stan ce s o f R ran ci’s acc ept ance of vol unt ary departur e. T he B I A di d notm ent i on t he fi r st p rong, s ugges t i ng t hati tfound thi s r equi r ementt o be met a s w e ll.
M os tof the di s put e betw een t h e p art i es focus es on Lozada ’s s e c o n d p r o n g . In a n a ttem p t to sa tisf yth is r e q u i r e me n t , Rr a n c i s u b mi t t e d wi t h h i s mot i o n t o r eopen a s econd a ffi davi t , t hi s t i m e fr om hi s curr ent couns el , R ex C hen. In th is s tate m e n t, C h e n a ttes ted to a c o n v e rsa tio n h e h a d w ith C ar abel l o r egar di ng t he l att er ’ s r epr es ent at i on of R r anci atthe I J hear i ng. C hen i nform ed C ar abel l o t hatR r anci “w as cons i der i ng a mot i on t o r eopen the ca s e t o pur s ue r el i ef unde r t he s t at e cr eat ed danger doctr i ne. ” C hen expl ai ned t he natur e of t hat doctr i ne and a l s o r el ay ed R r anci ’ s al l egat i on of i nt i m i dat i on justbefor e ent er i ng hi s hear i ng befor e the I J

. I n r es pons e, acc or di ng t o C hen’ s aff

i davi t , C ar abel l o s t at ed thathe fe l ti tw as i n R r anci ’ s bes ti nt er es tt o acc eptvol unt arydepartur e, deni ed t hathe t ol d R r anci he w oul d be i m pr i s oned ordet ai ned i f R r anci di d notdepart vol unt ar i l y , and concede d t hathe w as unaw ar e of14 t he s t at e- cr eat ed dange rdoctr i ne. T h e B IA a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s ru lin g th a t R ra n c i f a iled to s at i s fythe second pr ong of Lozada , h o lding that C h en ’s aff i davi tfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatC ar abel l o w as aw ar e of a ny al l egat i ons of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance . I t also s t at ed thatno e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted re g a rd in g C a ra b e llo ’ s o p p o rtu n ityto res po nd t o an ysuch all egati on s. W e d i s a g r e e . W e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y warn e d of t he

“ in h e re n t d a n g e rs . . . i n a p p ly in g a stric t, fo rm u laic i nt erpr et at i on of Lozada

. ” X u Y o n gL u v . A sh c ro

ft , 259 F. 3d 1 2 7 , 1 3 3 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). Lozada “s erve[s ] as a thr es hol d and a s cr eeni ng m echa ni s m t o hel p t he agenc y as s es s t he s ubs t ant i ve n u m b e r o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im s th a t it r e c e iv e s .” Fadiga , 488 F. 3d at 155 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. B ut i t does nots peci fyi n det ai l w hatcons t i tut es an opportuni t yfor pr i orcouns el t o r es pond. “[B]e for e al lega t i ons of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of form er couns el ar e pr es ent ed t o the [BIA ] , form er couns el m us tbe i nform ed of the al l egat i ons and al l ow ed the o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d . A n y su b se q u e n t r e sp o n se f ro m c o u n se l, orr epor tof couns el ’ s fai l ur e orrefus al t o r es pond, s houl d be s u b m itte d w ith th e m o tio n .” 1 9 I. & N . D e c . a t 6 3 9

. C hen’s af

fi davi ts at i s fi ed thi s r equi r ement
. I tpr ovi des evi dence t hatC hen i nform ed C ar abel l o t hatR r anci w as c o n sid e r in g a m o tio n to re o p e n th e c a se a n d d e sc rib e d b o th a rg u m en ts p u rsue d b ef

o re th e IJ, the B IA , an d o u r C o u rt . W e15 have no e vi dence t hatC hen us ed the s peci fi c w or ds “i neff ect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel. ” B u t he i n fo rm ed C ara b ell o o f R ran ci’s a l l e g a t i o n o f i n t i mi d a t i o n , whi c h g a v e Ca r a b e l l o n o t i c e of t he s ubs t ance of R r anci ’ s s u p p o rt fora mot i on t o r eopen. T he aff i davi tr efl ect s t hatR r anci ’ s pr i orand curr entcouns el d iscu ssed their co n f

li cti n g v iew s o f th e m erit s o f R ran ci’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a n d th e re lev a n t leg a l th e o rie s. In th is cont ex t , C ar abel l o r ece i ved ade quat e not i ce thatR r anci w as c o n t e mp l a t i n g a n i n e f

f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m. W e al s o concl ude t hatR r anci pr ovi ded C ar abel l o w i t h an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond and s ubm i t t ed hi s r es po n se w i t h t he m o tio n . S p e c if

ic a lly , C h e n ’s s w o rn a f f id a v it co n tain s h is fi r s t hand ac countof C ar abel l o’ s r es pons e— t hathe d i dn otknow of the s t at e- cr eat ed dange rdoctr i ne and c ont i nu ed t o bel i eve that a c c e p t i n g v o l u n t a r yd e p a r tu r e w a s th e a p p r o p r i a t e l e g a l s t r a t e g y. W e ac know l edge the B I A ’ s conce r n t hatC ar abel l o di d nothave a n o p p o r tu n i t yt o r e s p o n d , s i n c e h e d i d n o tp r o v i d e h i s o wn w r i t t en r ebut t al

. W e agr ee thata s epar at e r es pons e w oul d be i deal

. Y et beca us e C hen’ s aff i davi t m ade the B I A aw ar e of the s ubs t ance of C ar abel l o’ s r es pons e, and ourC our thas caut i oned agai ns ta “s t r i ct
. . . i nt erpr et at i on of Lozada , ” Xu Yong Lu , 259 F. 3d at 133, w e hol d t hatR ran ci s at i s fi ed Lozada ’ s s econd pr ong i n t hi s i ns t ance . R ra n c i co n c e d e s th a t h e f a ile d to f

ile a b a r c o m p lain t. T h u s , t o s a t i s f

y Lozada ’ s t hi r d pr ong, he mustexpl ai n w hyhe d i d n o tp u r s u e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n a g a i n s tCa r a b e l l o . 1 9 I

. & N.16 D ec. at639. I n hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, R r anci ci t ed both hi s l ack of Engl i s h- l anguage s ki l l s and t i m e pr es s ur e. T hi s excus e i s off poi nt , s i nce the fi l i ng o f a d is ci pl i naryact i on w oul d be an appr opr i at e t as k forhi s new couns el , r ather tha n the pet i t i oner hi m s el f. T hus , R r anci ’ s di ffi cul t yw i t h E ngl i s h an d l egal s t andar ds i s i r r el evant t o the thi r d pr ong of Lozada

. R r anci has notpr ovi ded adequa t e evi dence of hi s di l i gence i n i nves t i gat i ng w h e th e r d i s c ip lin a ry a c tio n w o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p ro p ri a te
. See Zheng , 422 F. 3d at106. Such di l i gence , and pr ovi di ng evi dence o f i tt o s a t i s f

y Lozada ’ s t hi r d pr ong, w o u ld h ave been pr efe r abl e. D es pi t e the l ack of a compel l i ng excus e fornotpur s ui ng di s ci pl i naryact i on agai ns thi s pr i orcoun sel , w e s t i l l cons i der R ranci t o h ave sat i sfi ed the necessaryproced ural requi rem ents
. W her e a pe t i t i oners ucce eds on t he f ir st t w o pr ongs of Lozada butdoes notfi l e a di s ci pl i narycompl ai ntorp rov ide an expl anat i on, w e have hel d t hatt he thi r d pr ong does not nece s s ar i l ys i nk a pet i t i oner ’ s i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- couns el cl ai m . A s w e expl ai n ed i n Fadiga , as l ong as the pol i cy conce r ns on w hi ch the thi r d pr ong i s bas ed have been s erved, t h e c o m p la in t r e q u ir e m e n t m a yb e e x c u s e d

. See 488 F. 3d at 156–57

. In th a t ca se , w e h e ld th a t Lozada di d not bar a pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m even though the pet i t i oner“nei t herfi l ed a di s ci pl i narycompl ai ntnorexpl ai ned hi s fai l ur e t o do s o. ” Id

. at 156 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).
I n ourcas e, w e ar e s at i s fi ed t hat t he pol i ci es under l y i ngC ongr es s had hel d a publ i c hea r i ng o n the t r eatyi n J une 5 2 0 0 4

. See L aw E nfo rcem ent T reat i es: H eari ng on T reatyD ocs. 107- 18, 108- 6, 108- 11, and 108-16 B efor e t he S en. C om m . on For ei gn R el at i ons , 108t h C ong. ( 2004)

. T he S en at e For ei gn Rel a t i on s Com mi t t e e a pp r ov e d the tr e a t yi n J ul y20 05 , j us t b e f o re R ra n c i’ s h e a ri n g b e f o re th e IJ in A u g u s t 2 0 0 5

. See L ast W eek , C ong. Q

. T oday , J ul y29, 2005. A W es t l aw s ear ch i n the Jo u rna ls an d L aw R ev iew s d atab ase co n d u cted b ef o re R ran ci’s 17 Lozada ’ s t hi r d pr ong have been m et
. T hes e pol i ci es i ncl ude: ( 1) i den ti fy i ng, pol i ci ng, and corr ect i ng m i s conducti n t he i m m i gr at i on bar ; ( 2) det err i ng m er i t l es s cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; ( 3) hi ghl i ght i ng t he expec t ed s t andar ds of l aw y er i ng for i m m i gr at i on at t orney s ; ( 4) r educi ng t he nee d for an evi dent i ary h ear i ng; and ( 5) avoi di ng col l us i on betw een c o u n s e l a n d a lie n c lie n ts
. See i d. W e c o n sid e r th e se p o licie s in tur n. R ra n c i su b m itt e d e n o u g h in h is m o tio n to re o p e n to h e lp hi s pr i orcouns el avoi d the s ame m i s t akes i n the futur e. Al t h o u g h a n a r g u me n tb a s e d o n th e s t a t e - c r e a t e d d a n ger e x c e p t i o n u l t i ma t e l ywo u l d h a v e p r o v e n f ru i t l e s s ( b e c a u s e we deci ded Kam ar a three w ee k s af ter R ran ci’s i n it ial IJ h ea ri n g ), C ar abel l o fai l ed t o pur s ue any l egal ar gum entbas ed on R r anci havi ng s erved as a w i t nes s agai ns ta pr om i nent , dan ger ous cr i m i nal

. Fori ns t ance , he fa i l ed t o m ent i on a re l evantt r eaty , t he C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T ra n s n a tio n a l O rg a n iz e d C ri m e . See inf ra Par tV

. A w ar ene ss o f l egal doctr i nes thatcoul d pr ovi de

5IJ heari ng w ou l d hav e un cov ered do zens of art i cl es thatdis cuss t he tr e a t ya n d t h e r e l e v a n tp r o t o c o l d e a l i n g wi th h um an s m u g g lin g . See , e. g. , B ru c e Z a g a ri s , R evis i t i ng N ovel Appr oaches t o C om bat t i ng the Fi nanci n g o f C r i m e: A B r ave N ew W or ld R evis i t ed , 5 0 Vi l l

. L. Re v . 5 0 9 , 5 3 6

– 3 7 ( 2 005) ( di s cus s i ng t he tr eatyand ment i on ing it s pr ovi s i on forthe p rotec ti o n o f w itn esse s). 18 pr ot ect i o n fo r a G overnm entw i t nes s l i ke R r anci m i ghthave alt ere d C ara b ell o ’s s tr a tegic d ec isi o n to rec o m m en d v o lun tary d e p a rtu re . C a ra b e llo ’s p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n w ith C h e n m a d e h im aw ar e of the s hor t comi ngs of hi s r epr es ent at i on byi nform i ng h im th a t leg a l d o c trin e s a rg u a b lyp ro tec tin g w itn e ss e s d o e x ist. I f pr es ent ed w i t h a s i m i l ar cas e i n t he futur e, C ar abel l o now has in f o rm a tio n th a t w ill h e lp h im to d o b e tter. In th is c o n tex t, fi l i ng a form al di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng agai ns t C ar abel l o i s not nece s s aryt o advanc e the pol i cygoal of i dent i fy i ng, pol i ci ng, a n d c o rre c tin g m isc o n d u c t.
T he otherpol i ci e s b e h i n d Lozada ’ s thi r d pr ong have be en serv ed h ere as w ell

. B ec au se o f th e p o ssiblysign ifi ca n t errors C a ra b e llo m a d e , see i nfr a S e c tio n IV .B , w e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e in t hi s par t i cul arcas e thatR r anci ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance i s m er i tl ess. T he phone c onver s at i on betw een Car abel l o and C h e n h a s h ig h lig h ted th e n e e d f o r im m ig ra tio n law y e rs to per form r es ear ch t ai l or ed t o eac h cl i entand t o keep up w i t h new d e v e l o p me n t s i n t h i s f a s t
- c h a n g i n g a r e a o f

l a w . Th a ts a me conver s at i on pr ovi des evi dence of a ke ys our ce of the al l eged19 i neff ect i venes s

— C arab el l o’ s l ack of aw ar enes s of l egal doctri nes t hatpot ent i al l ypr ot ectw i t nes s es . T hatevi dence red u ce s the n ee d fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g ab o u t C ara b ell o ’s r epr e s e n t a t i o n o f Rr a n c i

. Fi n a l l y , t h e r e i s n o s u g g e s t i on of c o llu sio n b e tw e e n C a ra b e llo a n d R ra n c i.
I n s um , al t hough he fe l l s hor tof the i deal , R r anci has s uffi ci ent l yaddr es s ed the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of Lozada to p r o c e e d wi t h h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m. B . A p p l i cati on of the S u b st an ti ve E rror-an d -Preju d i ce T est to R r a n c i’s C la im
I neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el can c ons t i tut e a deni al o f d u e p ro c e ss if

a n a lien is p re v e n ted f ro m re a so n a b ly p re s e n tin g h is c a s e . Xu Yong Lu , 259 F. 3d at 131 ( ci t i ng Lozada v . I NS , 85 7 F

. 2d 10 , 13 -14 (1stC i r. 1 9 8 8 )). O ur C ou rtuses a t w o- par t t es t t o as s es s err or and pr ej udi ce, as ki ng “( 1) w hether compet entcouns el w oul d have act ed ot herw i s e, and, i f y es , ( 2) w hethert he al i en w as pre j udi ced bycouns el ’ s poor per form ance . ” Fadiga , 488 F. 3d at157 (cit at i ons and i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted).
1. E rror s by P ri or C ounsel C ar abel l o m ad e atl eas tt hr ee pos s i bl e err or s t hat comp e t e n tc o u n s e l ma yn o th a v e ma d e . Fi r s t , a s me n t i oned above, he had notdone enough r es ear ch to know of the20 im p en d ing tr ea ty , leta lon e w h ethe r i t w o u ld ap p lyto R ran ci’s c l a i m. T h e r e c o r d s h o ws t h a tCa r a b e l l o d i d i n q u i r e a tt h e DOJ t o learn ab ou tR ranci ’s coo perat i on w i t h M uh o’s pr osecutors
. A rguably , t his shou l d hav e al ert ed C arabel l o to the u niquene ss o f R ra n c i’s c laim a n d to th e n e e d f o r f u r th e r r e se a rc h . B u t it appea r s t hatC ar abel l o di d noti d ent i fyanyl egal t heoryt hat m i ghthave he l ped R r anci obt ai n r el i ef. Second— even put ti ng as i de the al l egat i on of i nt i m i dat i on, w hi ch i s di s put ed— C ar abel l o abrupt l ys w i t ched s t r at egi es and al l egedl yl efthi s cl i entconfus ed. H avi ng p re p a re d f

o r a th re e -h o u r h e a rin g , R ra n c i th e n h e a rd a las tm inu te reco m m en d ati o n to ac ce p t vo lun taryd ep a rt u re . If C ar abel l o had done the l egw or k, he w oul d have be en pr epar ed. W h il e w e do n o t sp ec u lat e as t o the reaso n s f o r C a ra b ell o ’s su d d e n s h if

t, w e n o n e th e les s d o n o t u n d e rsta n d w h yh e w o u ld r ecomm end on thes e fa ct s thatR r anci for go a hea r i ng. T hi r d, C ar abel l o r ecomm ended vol un t arydepartur e, w hi ch i s or di nar i l yunder s t ood as a pr i vi l ege, butm aynothave benef i t t ed hi s cl i enti n thi s par t i cul arcase . T h e fact s t hat C a ra b e llo h a d c o llec ted , the se rio u s n e ss o f th e a lleg e d th re a ts R ran ci re c e iv e d , the c o rrob o rati o n b ythe D O J o f R ran ci’s cooper at i on, and the over al l cons is t encyand pl aus i bi l i t yof R r anci ’ s s t or y , su g g es tt hatC ar abel l o s houl d have a voi ded vol unt arydepartur e unl es s i tw as cl ear t hata countr yotherthan A lban ia w oul d acc epthi m . O n thi s r ecor d, w e do notknow w hetherR r anci coul d have de par ted t o a countr yothert han21 A lb a n ia. N o n e th e les s, g iv e n th e p e ril R ra n c i ap p e a rs to f a c e , it is po ssible tha t C ara b ell o erred b yrec o m m en d ing v o lun tary d e p a rtu re w it h o u t k n o w in g if th e re w a s a n yo th e r c o u n tryin w h i c h h e w a s e l i g i b l e t o s t a y. In th is u n iq u e c o n tex t, w e th in k th e p o ss ib ili ty o f e rro r is s t r ong enough thatw e r emand t o the B I A forcon side rati on of w h e th e r R ra n c i’ s p ri o r c o u n s e l er re d

. Fadiga , 488 F. 3d at161 ( not i ng that o u r C o u rth as th e p o w er to rem an d a c ase to the B IA t o d eter m i ne w hetheran att orney ’ s r epr es ent at i on w as s ubs t ant i vel ydefi ci ent w her e t he pr ocedur al r equi r ement s have b ee n m et).
2. P rej udi ce Foran al i en t o demonstr at e t hat he suff er ed pre j udi ce due to h is co u n sel’s u n p rof

essio n al erro rs, h e m u st sho w that there w as a “r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he r es ul tw oul d have be en di ffe r ent if t he err or [s ]

. . . had notoccurr ed. ” Id

. at159 ( quot i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . C h a rle sw e ll , 456 F. 3d 347, 362 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

. A n al i en “ne ed nots how t hat couns el ’ s defi ci ent per form ance m or e l i kel yt han notal t er ed the o u tco m e in th e c a s e [ ;] ra th e r, h e m u st s h o w o n lya p ro b a b ili ty su f f icie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tco m e . T h is s ta n d a rd is n o t a s tr in g e n t o n e .” I d. at 161 ( ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( ana l ogi zi ng t o t he s t andar d for pr ej udi ce i n t he cont extof Si xth A m endmenti neff ect i veassistan ce -of

-co u n sel claim s).22 B yac ce p ti n g v o lun taryd ep ar tu re at his p ri o r co u n sel’s r e c o mme n d a t i o n , Rr a n c i g a v e u p h i s c l a i ms f o ra s y l u m, w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect ion. G r ant ed, he s eems t o fac e an uphi l l batt l e on hi s as y l um cl ai m beca use he has notal l eged thathe w i l l be per s ecut ed bas ed on “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, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U

. S. C

. A

. § 1101( a)(42) ( A ) ( defi ni ng
“ re f u g e e ” s ta tu s , i

. e. , eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum ). N o ap p ell ate c o u rt t o ourknow l edge ha s deemed “s m u g g li ng i nform ant s ” t o be a s oci al gr oup t hatcan s erve as a pr ot ect ed gr ound foran as y l um cl ai m . I f R r anci ’ s as y l um cl ai m i s notl i kel yt o s ucce ed, t hen a f ort i ori h is c laim f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l is n o t li k e lyto s u c c e e d e ith e r. S e e J

a n u s i a k v . I NS , 947 F. 2d 46 , 4 7

– 4 8 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( expl ai ni ng thatw i t hhol di ng of r emoval r equi r es d em o n str ati n g a h igh er p rob ab il ityo f p erse cu ti o n than asy lum ). W e d o n o t, o f c o u rse, pa ss jud g m en t on the m erit s o f R ran ci’s asy l um and w i t hh oldi ng of r em ov al cl ai m s. B ut forthe p urpose of eva l uat i ng pr ej udi ce a s part of hi s i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance - ofcouns el cl ai m , w e foc us on C A T pr ot ect i on. T h e C A T stat es th at “[ n ]o S tat e P artysh all ex p el, return (‘r ef o u ler’) o r ex tr ad it e a perso n to ano ther S tat e w h ere there are s ubs t ant i al gr ounds forbel i evi ng t hat he w oul d be i n dangerof bei ng s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e. ” C A T art
. 3( 1)

. Forthe purpos es of t he C A T , t or tur e i s defi ned as pai n or s uffe r i ng “i nfl i ct ed byor at the i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h the cons entoracqui es cenc e of a p u b lic o f

f icia l o r o th e r p e rso n a c tin g in a n o f f icia l p u b lic c a p a c ity .” C A T a rt. 1 (1 ); s ee 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1208. 18( a) ( 7)23 (“ A c q u ies c e n c e o f

a p u b lic o f

f icia l re q u ire s th a t th e p u b lic off i ci al , pri or t o the act i vity con st i tuti ng t orture, hav e aw areness of s uch ac t i vi t yand ther eaf t erbrea ch hi s orherl egal resp o n sibil ityto interv en e to p rev en t suc h ac ti v ity . ”). O urC our thas expl ai ned w hatconst i tut es “cons entor acqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al ” forthe purpos es of pr ot ect i on u n d er the C A T

. In Si lva- R engi f o v. A t t or ney G ener al , 473 F. 3d 58, 64–65 ( 3d. C i r . 2007) , w e co n cl uded thatthe B I A adopt ed an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d r equi r i ng offi ci al “con sen t” or “ac tual acqui es cenc e, ” i d. at70

. “F or purpo ses of C A T cl ai m s, a c q u ies c e n c e to to rtu re re q u ire s o n lyth a t g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls r emai n w i l l ful l ybl i nd t o t or tu r o us conductand br eac h t hei rl egal r es pons i bi l i t yt o pr eventi t
. ” I d. ; se e a lso Zh e n gv . A sh c ro ft , 332 F. 3d 1186, 1197 ( 9t h C i r . 2003) ( r equi r i ng onl yaw ar enes s and w il lfu l bli n d n ess o f g o v ern m en t of ficials fo r C A T p rotec ti o n ).
T h e k e yq u e stio n in o u r c a se is w h e th e r a “ re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d ” e x ists tha t R ra n c i c o u ld p re v a il o n h is C A T c laim if h is c a s e w e re re o p e n e d

. Fadiga , 4 8 8 F .3 d a t 1 5 9 . T h e B IA h e ld t hat , i n l i ghtof Kam ara and the i nappl i cabil it y o f the s t at ecr eat ed dange rexce pt i on, R r anci had exper i ence d no pr ej udi ce. F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d in th e re m a in d e r o f th is s e c tio n a n d in P a rt V b e lo w , w e re m a n d to th e B IA f o r a n o th e r h e a rin g to d ec ide w h ethe r R ran ci w as p rejud iced b yp ri o r c o u n sel’s per form ance . T o b e g in , R ra n c i h a s n o t b e e n c h a llen g e d o n c re d ib ili ty24 g ro u n d s. H e h a s p ro v id e d a c o n sis ten t a c c o u n t o f th e th re a t to hi s l i fe he fac es from M uho and hi s A l bani an cr i m e s yndi cat e. H e coupl es t hi s w i t h an al l egat i on of ac qui es cence bythe A l bani an governm ent( an al l egat i on t hat appea r ed i n hi s M ar ch 2 0 0 5 a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d CA T p ro tec tio n ). In h is a p p e n d ix , R ra n c i in c lu d e d tw o d o c u m e n ts d e tailin g h u m a n tra f

f ick in g in A lb a n ia. A B B C N e w s a rticle not es t hatm any of t he t r aff i cker s i n A l bani a w or k i n col l us i on w i t h t he “unde rpai d pol i ce fo rce, w ho turn a bl i nd ey e t o the h i g h ly lu c ra tiv e tr a d e .” C la ir e D o o le , Al b a n i a Bla med f or H um an T ra f f i cki ng , B B C N e w s , A p ri l 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , at h ttp :/ / new s. bb c. co. uk / 1/hi / w orl d/eur o p e /1 2 8 1 8 1 6 .stm (l ast vi s i t ed J ul y29, 2008)

. A St at e D epart m en t count r yr epor ton A l bani an h u m an r i ght s pr act i ces al s o m ent i ons the pr obl em of p o lice c o rru p tio n a n d in v o lv e m e n t in tra f f ick in g . It g o e s o n to sta te th a t v ictim s o f

tra f f ick in g a re u n w ill in g to tes tif y “ d u e to fe a r of r e t r i bu t i on fr om tr a ff i c ke r s a nd di s t rus t of po l i c e . ” U

. S. D ep’tof S t at e, A l ban i a: C ou ntryR epo rton H um an R ig h ts P r a c tic e s – 2 0 0 2 a t 1 4 (2 0 0 3 ), avai l abl e at h ttp ://w w w .s t a te.g o v /g /d rl/rls/h rrp t/2 0 0 2 /1 8 3 4 9 .h tm ( l as t vi s i t ed J ul y29, 2008)

. “Law y er s and j udges m ay al s o be mani pul at ed an d br i bed, perm i t t i ng tr aff i cker s t o buyt hei rw ayoutof puni s hm enti f arr es t ed. ” I d.
B a se d o n R ra n c i’s a f f id a v it, th e e v id e n c e o f h is cooper at i on, and the ci r cumst ant i al ev idence of the thr eathe fac es , w e ca nnots aythati ti s i m pl aus i bl e t h at R r anci w i l l be t or tur ed orki l l ed i f he r eturns t o A l bani a. T her e maybe a25 “r eas onabl e l i kel i h o o d” thatt he pervas i ve br i beryand in v o lv e m e n t o f

v a rio u s A lb a n ian -g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls w o u ld cons t i tut e a “ w i l l ful bl i ndnes s ” t o t he t or tur ous conductof a hum an s m uggl erl i ke M uho

. T hus , w e r emand t o t he B I A for a f ind ing w h ethe r R ran ci w as p rejud iced b yC ara b ell o ’s rec o m m en d ati o n to fo rgo a f u ll IJ he aring an d ac ce p t vo lun tary departur e t o A l bani a. * * * * *
I n s um , w e h ol d t hatR r anci s at i s fi ed the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of Lozada

. B eca us e the B I A err ed i n appl y i ng the l aw t o t he undi s put ed fac t s of t hi s cas e, i tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on in d ism iss in g R ra n c i’s a p p e a l an d a f f irm in g th e IJ’ s d e n ial o f

h is m ot i on t o r eopen. W e r emand fort he B I A t o con side r the su b sta n tiv e a sp e c ts o f e rro r a n d p re

ju d ice w ith re g a rd to R r anci ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect ive assi s t ance of couns el i n l i ghtof th is o p in io n . See Fadiga , 488 F

. 3 d at161. I f he c an demonstr at e err orand pr ej udi ce, then hi s m o ti o n to r eopen s houl d be gr ant ed and he s houl d r ece i ve a ne w hear i ng befor e an I J on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai m s forr el i ef.
V. Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s t Tr a n s n a t i o n a l Or g a n i z e d Cr i me I n cl os i ng, w e not e thatR r anci ’ s cas e pr es ent s an i s s ue of fi r s ti m pr es s i on forourC our t
. H e and am i cicur i ae r ai s e the i s s ue w hethert he G overnm ent ’ s obl i gat i ons underpr ot ocol s of t he U ni t ed N at i ons C o n v ent i on A gai ns tT r ans nat i onalC ongr ess di d notr at i fythe C onvent i on unt i l O ct ober7, 6 2 0 0 5 , a n d it d id n o t tak e e f f e c t in th e U n ited S tate s u n til D ece m ber3, 2005. T he G overnm ent s t at es i n i t s br i ef t hatthe t r eatyw enti nt o for ce ge ner al l y on Sept ember29, 2003. B utt he S tate D e p a rtm e n t p o in ts o u t th a t “ [ a ] S tate m u st b e c o m e a p a rty to [ th e C o n v e n tio n ] in o rd e r to b e c o m e a p a rt y to its P ro to c o ls .” 26 O r gani zed Cri m e, N ov. 15, 20 0 0 , 2225 U

. N

. T

. S. 209 ( “the C on ven t i on ”), prohibi this rem ov al

. T he C on ven t i on st at es:
“ E a c h S tate P a rtysh a ll t a k e a p p ro p ria te m e a su re s w ith in its me a n s t o p r o v i d e e f

f e c t i v e p r o t e c t i o n f

r o m pot ent i alr etal i at i on or i nt i m i dat i on for w i tnes s es i n cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs w ho gi ve te s tim o n yc o n c e rn in g o f f e n c e s c o v e re d b y th is C o n v e n tio n . . . .” Id

. atar t
. 24( 1) ( emphasi s adde d ). A n n ex I I I t o the tr eaty , the Pr ot ocol A gai ns tt he Sm uggl i ng of M i gr ant s by L and, Sea, and A ir, i s a su p p lem e n t th a t is m e a n t to b e in terp re ted to g e th e r w ith A n n ex I ( i

. e. , th e m a in tr e a ty). I d. at A n n ex II I, a rt . 1 (1). O ffe ns es underA nnex I I I ar e vi ew ed as offe ns es undert he C o n v e n tio n a s w h o le , i d. atA nn ex III, art
. 1(3), and tho se o f f e n s e s in c lu d e th e s m u g g lin g o f m ig ra n ts , i d. a t A n n e x III, a rt. 6( 1) ( a)

. T hus , i tappea r s t hat t he w i t nes s pr ot ect i ons of A nnex I w oul d appl yt o w i t nes s es s uch as R r anci w ho pr ovi ded s t at ement s ort es t i fi ed t o cr i m es defi ned under A nnex II I of the C o n v en ti o n , h ere M uh o’s s m ug gli ng cri m es. W e di d nothave th e o p p or tuni t yt o addr es s t he C onvent i on i n Kam ara , w h ich ( as not ed above ) w as deci ded b e f o re th e C o n v e n tio n to o k e f f e c t. A m ici ar gue thatthe s t at e- 6See P r es s R el eas e, U

. S. D ept
. of St at e, “FactSheet : U ni t ed Na t i o n s Co n v e n t i o n a g a i n s tTr a n s n a t i on a l Or g a n i z e d Cr i me ( T O C ) ” ( N o v . 3 , 2 0 0 5 ), a t h ttp ://w w w .sta te.g o v /r/p a /p rs/p s/2 0 0 5 /5 6 0 0 6 .h tm ( l as tvi s i t ed Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ). 27 c re a ted d a n g e r e x c e p tio n w o u ld b e a n a p p ro p ria te v e h icle to i n c o rp o r a t e t h e Co n v e n t i o n ’ s p r o v i s i o n s i n t o Un i t e d S t a t e s l a w. W e nee d notr eac h t hati s s ue of treatyi nt erpr et at i on her e. B ut w e not e thatt he conc ept o f pr ot ect i ng w i t nes s es underthe C onvent i on i s di s t i nctfr om the st at e- cr eat ed dange rexce pt i on. T he l at t er r el at es t o cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s of l aw , w her eas pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on w oul d com e fr om t he U ni t ed St at es ’ t r eatyobl i gat i ons . W e ar e s kept i cal t hatt he s t at e- cr eat ed dangerexce pt i on, w hi ch ext en d s w el l bey ond the i m m i gr at i on cont ext , can a ppr opr i at el yacc om m odat e the s peci fi c o b l i g a t i o ns of the C onvent i on. T he G overnm ent ar gues t hat t he C onvent i on i ntr oduced no new pr ot ect i ons foral i ens . A Senat e re por tand a l et t erfr om Pr es i dentB us h have s t at ed thatcurr entU ni t ed St at es l aw al r eadycompl i es w i t h the C onvent i on, obvi at i ng th e n ee d for any i m pl ement i ng l egi s l at i on. G ov’ t ’ s B r . at15 ( ci t i ng S. E xec. D o c . No. 1 0 9

- 4 , § § 1 ( c ) , 2 ( c ) , & 3 ( c ) , Oct o b e r7 , 2005; P re sid e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s, L e tter o f T ra n sm itt a l, T re a ty D oc. 108- 16, February 23, 2004)

. A cce pt i ng thati nt erpr et at i on as accura t e, t he abs ence of i m pl ement i ng l egi s l at i on does not im p ly that t he B I A has no need t o s etouthow exi s t i ng l aw28 compl i es w i t h t he C onvent i on. O n t he contr ary , i tm aypr ovi de b e n e f icia l cla rityto a lien -in f

o rm a n t ca se s f

o r th e B IA to e x p lain i t s under s t andi ng of t he U ni t ed S t at es ’ obl i gat i ons t ow ar d al i ens w ho provide i nfo rm at i on i n cri m i nal cas es. T he G ov ernm ental so argues t hat R ranci fai l ed to exh aust admi ni s t r a t i v e l ya n yc l a i m he mi g h th a v e h a d u n d e rt he C onvent i on beca us e he di d notr ai s e i ti n hi s m ot i on t o r eopen b e f o r e t h e I J a n d t h e BI A. T h i s a r g u me n tmi s s e s t h e ma r k

. On a mot i on t o r eopen, a pet i t i onercl ai m i ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance o f c o u n se l n e e d n o t ar g u e th e m e rits o f h is c laim s— th o se w ill r e c e iv e a h e a rin g if

th e p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n to re o p e n is s u c c e s s f u l. C f

. Fadiga , 4 8 8 F .3 d a t 1 6 3 . It ca n n o t b e h e ld ag ains t R ran ci th at he fa il ed to raise the issue o f a tr ea tyb ef o re t he I J an d t he B I A i n thatpar t i cul arpr ocedur al cont ext , w hen t he t as k athand w as t o r eopen hi s cas e. O n r e mand , t he BI A s ho ul d de t e r mi ne ho w c urr e ntU

. S. l aw r efl ect s comp li ance w i th the s peci fi c pr ovi s i ons of the C onvent i on t hatar e r el evantt o R r anci ’ s clai m . W e l eave interpre t at i on of thi s i s s ue t o t he B I A forcons i der at i on i n t he f i r s t in s ta n c e . S e e IN

S v . A g u ir r e -A g u ir r e , 5 2 6 U. S. 4 1 5 , 425 ( 1999)

. B utt he C onvent i on cal l s i nt o ques t i on w h ethert he G overnm ent m ay put R r anci i nt o harm ’ s w ay i n A l bania a ft er us i ng hi s cooper at i on t o obt ai n a gui l t y pl ea fr om a si gni fi cant c rim in a l. T he B I A ’ s cons i der at i on of the C onvent i on w i l l fac t or in to th e d e g re e to w h ich R ra n c i m a yh a v e b e e n p re ju d ice d b yh is pr i o r c o u n s e l ’ s d e c i s i o n t o r e c o mme n d f o r g o i n g a h e a r i n g and29 acc ept i ng vol unt arydepartur e. * * * * *
For t hes e r eas ons , w e gr antR r anci ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand t o the B IA fora new hear i ng on the s ubs t ant i ve component s ( err orand pr ej udi ce) of hi s i neff ect i ve- as s i s t ance of- couns el cl ai m cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.