2005 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
8-12-2005 

# P arip ovic 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 . 03-4193

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_2005

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 2005 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

" P ar ipovic v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 611. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/611P 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. 03- 4193

Z E L JK O P A R IP O V IC

Pet i t i oner

v.

* AL BE RT O R
. GONZ AL E S , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent * Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 c , F. R. A
. P.

O n A p p ea l from an O rde r en tered b ef o re T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 72- 780- 152)

A r gued D ece m ber13, 2004 Be f o r e : AM BR O, VAN AN T WER P E N a n d S T AP L E T ON,

C i r cui tJ udges2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t12, 2005 ) Suni tK
. J os hi , E s qui r e ( A r gued) S o k o l B rah a, E sq u ir e J o s h i & A s s o c i a t e s , P
. C. 225 B r oadw ay , Sui t e 705 N ew Y or k, N Y 10007 A t t or ney s forPet i t i oner Pet erD
. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on R i char d M

. E vans A s s i s t antD i r ect or D o u g las G insb u rg, E sq u ir e Jo h n D
. W il li am s, E sq u ir e D avi d E

. D auenhe i m er , E s qui r e ( A r gued) 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 A t t or ney s forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT he Re p u b l i c o f Cr o at i a dec l ar ed i ndepende nce f r om the 1 f o rm e r Y u g o s la v ia in J u n e o f 1 9 9 1
. 3 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Z el j ko Par i povi c ( “Par i povi c”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng t he deni al by an Imm i gr at i on J udge (“ I J ”) of hi s appl i cat i on for asy lum and w i thhol di ng of deport at i on. W e denyt he pet i t i on (ex ce p t as t o the d esig n ati o n o f C roa ti a a s the alt ern ate c o u n try fordeport at i on)

. I n s o doi ng, w e deci de w hat i s for us an i s s ue of fi r s ti m p ressi on – t he meani ng of “l as thabi tual l yr es i ded” u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) f o r a “ sta tele ss ” in d iv id u a l. I . Fa c t s a nd Pr o c e du r a l H i s t o r y Par i povi c i s an ethni c Serb born i n C r oat i a i n 1964. A lth o u g h h e h o ld s a b irth c e rtific a te n a m in g C ro a tia a s h is bi r t hpl ace , Par i povi c conc eded be for e the I J t h at he w as re n d e re d sta te les s b yth e d iss o lu tio n o f th e f o rm e r Y u g o sla v ia i n 1992, and m uch of the par t i es ’ di s put e i s cent er ed on w hether hi s cl ai m s s houl d be ana l y zed w i t h C r oat i a orSerbia as the fr ame of r efe r ence . 1
T u rn in g f

irst to h is c laim s re late d to p e rse c u tio n inT w o o f t h o s e c l a i m s c a n b e d e a l tw i t h s u m m a r i l y. 2 Par i povi c ar gues i n hi s br i ef thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a humani t ar i an gr antof as y l um bas ed on the s ever it y of hi s pas tper s ecut i on al one. A tor al ar gum ent , couns el agr eed t hatt hi s cl ai m i s not p ro p e rl yb e f

o re u s , a s it w a s n o t r a is e d b e f o re th e a g e n c y . See A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F
. 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )

. He also ag ree d that n o claim u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re is b e f o re u s . 4 C r oat i a , Par i povi c t es t i fi ed bef or e the I J thati n O ct ober1990 2 he w as caug ht i n a po l i ce r ou nd -up of S erbi an m e n a n d bo y s. T he pol i ce det ai ned hi m i n a cam p for one m ont h, w her e he and ot her s w er e “t or t ur e[d] , ” “ha r a s s ed, ” and be at en. A p p ro x im a telye lev e n m o n th s la ter , C ro a tian so ld ier s c a m e to P a ri p o v ic ’s v illa g e a n d to ld th e S e rb s to “ le a v e th e c o u n tr y .” Fear i ng t hatt he rul i ng governm entw as i n the pr oces s of ca rry ing o u t th e o b

jecti v e o f m a k ing the c o u n try“p u re C roat i an, ” P ari po vic and h i s p a rents fl ed to Serbia i n A ug ust 1 9 9 1 . A t so m e p o in t d u rin g th e ir f lig h t, P a rip o v ic a n d h is m ot herw er e s ep arat ed fr om hi s father

. ( T heynevers aw nor h e a rd f ro m h im a g a in .) In Serbi a, P ari po vic and his m other l i ved i n a n o ld s chool hous e thats erved as partof a r efuge e ca m p. A l t hough condi t i ons w er e poor , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatPar i povi c w as b e a t e n , t o r tu r e d , o rt h r e a t e ne d. He wa s f r e e t o l e a v e th e c a mp atanyt i m e, but he had “no pl ace t o go. ” W hen mi l i t arypol i ce b e g a n re c ru iti n g re f

u g e e s to f

ig h t in C r o a ti a , h e f

led S e rb ia in5 D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 3 to a v o id b e in g c o n s c ri p te d

. Par i povi c ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es atPuer t o R i co w i t houti ns pect i on i n J anuary1994. W i t hi n day s he w as pl ace d in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s. C o n c e d in g d e p o rta b ili ty , P a rip o v ic fi l ed an appl i cat i on for as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of deport at i on. T he I J deni ed hi s appl i cat i on, and Par i povi c ap p eal ed t o t he B IA
. W itho u t discu ssing the m erit s o f th e a p p ea l, the B IA r emanded t he mat t ert o the I m m i gr at i on C ourt in D ece m ber 2000 beca us e por t i ons of the t r ans cr i pt w er e m i s s i ng ( ornever m a d e ). O n r emand, Par i povi c’ s cas e w as t r ans ferr ed t o the Im m ig ra tio n C o u rt in N e w a rk , N e w Je rse y . A t a h e a rin g in A pr i l 2001, t he IJ deci ded, w i t h Par i povi c’ s cons ent , t o exami ne hi s cl ai m s anew . T he I J s eta hea r i ng dat e forJ une 20, 2001, but on t hat dat e Par i povi c r eques t ed a cont i nuance . T he I J gr ant ed it an d a d v ise d P a r ip o v ic th a t if h e in ten d e d to c a ll a w itn e ss to t es t i fy about curr ent condi t i ons i n C r oat i a and Serb ia, that w i t nes s s hou ld be an e xper t
. T he ca s e w as cont i nued s ever al tim e s m o re , u ltim a te ly b e in g h e a rd in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2
. A tt hath e a r i n g , Pa r i p o v i c as ked aga i n foran adj ournm ent o f th e p ro c e e d in g s b e c a u se th e e x p e rt w itn e ss h e in ten d e d to c a ll w as i n B osnia. T he IJ den i ed t he request
. T urni ng t o the m eri t s, t he I J found t hat Par i povi c w as gener al l y cr edi bl e. T he IJ agr eed w i t h Par i povi c t hat t he t r eatm entof Serbs i n C r oat i a w as “di scr i m i nat or y ” and i n m anycas es “i nvol ved ac t s ofA tor al ar gum ent , couns el for t he G overnm entconce ded 3 th a t th e a lt e rn a te d e sig n a tio n o f C ro a tia w a s in e rro r. W ith r espe ct t o per s ecut i on i n C r oat i a, the I J m ade no f or m al f in d in g s , b u t “ a g re e [ d ] t h a t th e tr e a tm e n t o f S e rb s in C ro a tia

. . . in m a n ycases i nv olves act i on s of pe rs ecuti on . T he C ou rtis i n c l i n e d t o b e l i e v e t h e t e s t i mo n y o f [ P a r i p o v i c ] o v e r a l l i n t e r ms of hi s exper i ence s i n C r oat i a. ” B eca us e ther e i s no i ndi cat i on at t hi s t i m e thatPar i povi c w i l l be deport ed to C roa t i a, w e do not r emand f or cons i der at i on of t hi s i s s ue, butw i l l gr anthi s pet i t i on i ns ofaras i t s eeks t o vaca t e t he al t ernat e desi gnat i on of C r oat i a.
6 p erse cu ti o n . ” T h is cred ibil ityfin d ing n o tw ith s tand ing , the IJ d e te r m in e d th a t P a rip o v ic w a s n o t a r e f u g e e . In m a k in g th is det erm i nat i on, beca us e Par i povi c w as a s t at el es s i ndi vi dual , the IJ in q u ire d a b o u t th e c o u n tryin w h ich h e h a d “ las t h a b itu a lly r es i ded” t o det erm i ne w hetherhe w oul d fac e per s ecut i on i n t hat lo c a tio n , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ), an d d e ter m in e d th a t S e rb ia w a s th a t c o u n tr y . B e c a u se P a rip o v ic’ s o b

jec tio n to b e i ng returned to S e rb ia w as t hathe mi ghtbe dr aft ed t o fi ghti n a ci vi l w arand ther e w as n o lo n g e r o n g o in g c o n f

lict, h is o b

jec tio n w a s n o lo n g e r v a lidto t he I J , w ho concl u d ed thatPar i povi c had no l egi t i m at e fe arof per s ecut i on ort or tur e i n Serbi a. T he I J i s s ued a de por t at i on or der des i gnat i ng Serbi a as t he pr i m arydepor t at i on countr yand C r oat i a as t he al t ernat e. 37 T he B I A di s m i s s ed Par i povi c’ s appea l i n Sept ember 2003. I tconcl uded tha thi s cont ent i on thatt he I J err ed i n not g ran ti n g th e c o n ti n u an ce w as “ w ith o u t m erit ” (a s the ex p ert w i t nes s co u l d have pr ovi ded t es t i m onyi n the form of an a f f id a v it) , a n d it o th e rw is e a d o p te d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n .

I I . St andard of R evi ew B ecaus e Par ipo v ic’s de p o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s b eg an pr i or t o A p ri l 1, 1997, ourj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es fr om the form er I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i t yAc t( “ I NA” ) § 1 0 6 , 8 U. S
. C. § 1105a, and i s governed bythe tr ans i t i onal rul es of § 309( c) of th e Illeg a l Im m ig ra tio n R e f o rm a n d Im m ig ra n t R e sp o n sib ility A ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”), Pub. L
. N o. 104- 208, 110 St at
. 3009 (S ep t. 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 ). I n a s l i ght l ydi ffe r entcont ext , w e have concl uded thatt he det erm i nat i on of habi tual r es i dence i s a mi xed ques t i on of l aw a n d f a c t. See D elvoye v. Lee , 329 F. 3d 330, 332 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( det erm i ni ng a chi l d’ s “habi tual r es idence ” underthe H ague C o n v e n tio n o n th e C iv il A sp e c ts o f In ter n a tio n a l C h ild A bd ucti on byrevi ew i ng t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s con cl usi on as a m i xed ques t i on of l aw and fac t )

. A l t hough i n N a jja r v . A sh c ro

ft , 257 F. 3d 1262, 1294 ( 11t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ), t he C our tr evi ew ed the agenc y ’ s l as thabi tual r es i dence d eter m i nat i on bas ed on the su b stan ti al ev iden c e s tand ard , n o q u esti o n o f statuto ry i nt erpr et at i on w as pr es ent ed and the di s pute w as s t r i ct l ybas ed on t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs . B eca us e the l as thabi tual r es i dence i s s ueI ti s w el l

- s et t l ed that t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on and 4 appl i cat i on o f i m m i gr at i on l aw ar e s ubj ectt o defe r ence under t he pr i nci pl es of C hevr on U

. S. A

. , I nc. v. N at ur alR es our ce D ef ens e C ounci l

, I nc ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 2 -4 3 (1 9 8 4 ). See Ti neo v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 0 F
. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 9 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i ng I N S v. A gu i rre-A gu i rre , 526 U
. S. 415, 424 ( 19 9 9) )

. T he i s s ue of w hetherdefe r ence m aybe due he r e i s compl i cat ed s l i ghtl yby t he cons i der at i on t hatt he B I A di d noti ncl ude a s t at ement expl ai ni ng i t s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A )

. R ather , ci t i ng Mat t erof

B u rb ano , 2 0 I.& N . D e c . 8 7 2 , 8 7 4 (B IA 1 9 9 4 ), it e x p re s s ly ad o p te d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . See Tchoukhr ova v. G onz al es , 404 F. 3d 1181, 1188 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng t hat “[w ] hen the B I A does notexpr es s anydi s agr eem en t w i t h any par tof the i m m i gr at i on jud g e’ s deci s i on, buti ns t ead c i t es B ur bano , the B IA a d o p ts h is d e c isio n in its e n tirety .”); G ish ta v. G onz al es , 404 F. 3d 972, 980 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng t hat ci t at i on of [ B ur bano ]
. . . does not m ean t hat t he [BIA ] di d not exer ci s e i t s i ndepende ntr evi ew author i t yovert he ca s e, but r ather

. . . [i t ] adopt s oraff i r m s t he i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s deci s i on w hen i ti s “i n agr ee m en t w i t h t he r eas oni ng and r es ul tof that deci s i on” ( quot i ng B ur bano , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . a t 8 7 4 ))

. 8 can be r es ol ved i n our cas e onl ybyboth det erm i ni ng the fa ct s of t he ca s e and de ci di ng w hatt he appl i cabl e l aw m eans , w e r evi ew t he det erm i nat i on undera m i xed s t andar d of r evi ew . R evi ew of t he B IA ’s l e gal conclusi on s i s de novo , w ith a p p ro p ria te d e f e re n c e to th e a g e n c y ’s in ter p re tatio n o f th e u n d e rly in g sta tu te in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a d m in is tr a tiv e la w p ri n c ip le s . A b d u la i, 239 F. 3d 542, 551- 52 (3d C i r . 2001)

. R egar di ng fac tual 4W hen the B I A has aff i r m ed w i t hout opi ni on the dec i s i on o f th e IJ u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(4 )(ii), w e h a v e p re v io u sly d o u b te d w h e th e r i ts a f f ir m a n c e i s e n title d to d e f e re n c e . See Sm r iko v . A s h c r o

ft, 3 8 7 F
. 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 9 n . 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (“[I]t w o u ld se e m to b e , at th e v e ry le a st, a n o p e n q u e stio n a s to w hetheran I J ’ s deci s i on aff i rm ed thr ou g h t he s t r eaml i ni ng pr oces s w oul d be ent i t l ed t o C hevr on defe r ence . . . . [D ] efe r r i ng to th e re a so ning of

an IJ fr om w hich the B IA w ou l d b e free to d e p a rt in o th e r c a s e s w o u ld s e e m h ig h ly p ro b le m a tic .” ). A B ur bano a f

f i r ma n c e , h o we v e r , s i g n i f i c a nt l y d i f

f e r s f r o m a s t r eaml i ni ng deci s i on under8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 1( e) ( 4) ( i i ) , w hi ch “appr oves t he r esult rea ched i n the dec i s i on bel ow [, but ] does notnece s s ar i l yi m pl y ap pr oval of al l of the r eas oni ng of that deci s i on. ” I n B u r b a n o , th e B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t it s i ndepende nt r evi ew author i t y does not pr ecl ude [i t ] fr om adopt i ng oraff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the i mm i g r a t i o n j u d g e , i n wh o l e o ri n p a r t , wh e n we ar e i n agr eement w i t h the r eas oni ng and r es ul tof thatdecis i on . I n t hi s s i tuat i on, t he B o ar d’ s fi nal deci s i on m ay b e r ender ed i n a s um m aryfas hi on; how ever , s uch s um m ary t r eatm entof a c as e does not m ean t hat w e have conduct ed an a bbr evi at ed r evi ew of the r ecor d or have fai l ed t o exer ci s e our ow n di s cr et i on. B ur bano , 20 I
. & N
. D ec. at 874 ( emphasi s added)

. G i ven that t he B I A has i ndi cat ed thati t s anal y s i s has n o t b ee n t runcat ed, and appr oves bot h t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng as w el l as th e re s ul t , t he 9d e c is io n is e n title d to d e f e re n c e . 10 det erm i nat i ons , w e af fi r m fi n d ings of

fac ts uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. W e ar e t hus bound by t he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of f a c t u n les s a re a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to a rriv e a t a c o n tra ryc o n c lu s io n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); s ee a lso A b d ill e , 2 4 2 F .3 d a t 4 8 3
.

II I. A n a ly sis A . L as t H abi t ual R es i dence “A gr antof as y l um al l ow s an otherw i s e- r emovabl e al i en t o s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es . ” A bdulai , 239 F. 3d at 545. “Subj ect t o num er ous exce pt i ons noti m pl i cat ed i n thi s cas e, t he A t t orney G ener al m aygr antas y l um t o an al i en he de t erm i nes t o be a r efuge e. ” Id

. ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A “r efuge e” i s defi ned as anyper s on w ho i s out s i de anycountr yof s uch per s on’ s nat i onal i t yor , i n t he ca s e of a pers on h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u tsid e a n yc o u n tr y in w h i ch s uch per s on l as t habi t ual l

y r es i ded , a nd w h o is u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to re tu rn to , an d is unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f or her s el f of t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f

, t h a t c o u n t r y b e c a u s e of11 per s ecut i on or a w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on o n a c c o u n to f

r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al g r oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101 (a)(42 ) ( emphasi s added)

. Par i povi c ar gued below

— and t he IJ accept ed— t hat Pari po vic i s a “st at el ess” i ndi vi dual

. H e s t r enuous l yar gues thatthe I J s houl d have d e te rm in e d th a t h e la s t h a b itu a lly re s id e d in C ro a tia

. T he I J r eas oned: I n t hi s cas e the C our tdet erm i n es tha tt he r e s p o n d e n tl a s th a b i tu a l l y r e s i d e d i n S e rb i a . He re sid e d in S e rb ia f

ro m A u g u st o f

1 9 9 1 to D ece m ber o f 1993. T he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ctdefi nes t he conc eptof r es i dence and i ts t at es t he “t erm r es i dence m eans the pl ace of gener al abode; t he pl ace of gene r al abode of a per s on m eans hi s pr i nci pal , actual dw el l i ng pl ace in f a c t, w ith o u t re g a rd to in ten t.” P a rticu la r ly r el evantt her e i n t h is defi ni t i on i s t he i s s ue of i nt ent
. T he r es pondentm ayw el l n o t ha ve i nt ended t o s t ayi n a r efuge e camp hi s w hol e l i fe, butt he C our tfee l s t hatt he amountof t i m e he s pentt her e makes i tfai r l ycl ear t hat hi s l as tpl ace of habi tual r es i dence w as Serbi a.12 U n d er C hevr on , w e m us t det erm i ne w hether“the s t atut e i s s i l ent orambi guous w i t h r espectt o the s peci fi c i s s ue, ” and, i f s o,
“ w h e th e r th e a g e n c y ’s a n sw e r i s b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le cons t ruct i on of the s t atut e. ” C hevr on , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 8 4 3 ; see al so O keke v. G onz al es , 407 F. 3d 585, 588 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. H er e, the I N A s t at es t hat an i ndi vi dual ’ s r efuge e s t atus s hal l be d e ter m in e d “ in th e c a se o f a p e rso n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity ” b yh is or her r el at i on shi p w i t h the “cou ntryi n w hich such p ers on l ast habi tual l yr es i ded, ” § 1101( a) ( 42) , buti t n o w her e cl ar i fi es the m eani ng of “l as t habi tual l y r es i ded. ” G i ven the s i l ence as t o t he m eani ng on t hi s s peci fi c i s s ue, w e cons i derw hetherthe ans w er i s bas ed on a pe r m i s s i bl e cons truct i on of the s t atut e. T h o u g h “ l a s t h a b i tu a l l y r e s i d e d ” i s u n d e f i n e d , t h e I NA does defi ne the t erm “r es i dence ” as “the pl ace of gener al abode; th e p lac e o f

g e n e ra l ab o d e o f

a p e rso n m e a n s h is p rin c ip a l, a c tu a l d we l l i n g p l a c e i n f a c t , wi t h o u tr e g a r d t o i n t e n t , ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(3 3 ); cf

. 8 C
. F. R
. § 214. 7( 4) ( i ) ( defi ni ng “habi tual r es i dence ” fordet erm i ni ng ci t i zens hi p of the t err i t or i es and pos s es s i ons of t he U ni t ed St at es as t he “pl ace of gene r al abode o r a p ri nci pal , actual dw el l i ng pl ace of a c ont i nui ng orl as t i ng natur e”)

. I tw as fort hi s r eas on t hatt he I J concl ud ed t hat P a rip o v ic’ s in ten t w a s irre lev a n t to th e a n a ly sis . P a rip o v ic arg u es th at i t w as n o t his ch o ice to li v e in S erb ia, an d there fo re i t s ho u l d n o tb e d e e me d t o b e h i s p l a c e o f l a s th a bi t ual r es i dence

. T hi s ar gum ent , how ever , es s ent i al l yr epl ace s t he not i on of “i nt ent ” w it h the conc eptof “c hoi ce. ” Theyar e t oo s i m i l art o pr ovi de a ba sis forconcl udi ng t hatthe I J , gi ven due13 d e f e re n c e , e rr e d in h is a n a lysis

. A lth o u g h th e IJ d o e s n o t e x p re ss ly d e f in e “ h a b itu a l,” h is re a so n in g m a k e s c lea r th a t h e u n d e rsto o d th is te rm to re late to t he “a m ountof t i m e [Par i povi c] s pentt her e. ” “H abi tual ” may be defi ned as “es t abl i s hed byl ong us e” or“us ual

. ” See C hen v. Mayf l ow erTrans i t

, I nc . , 3 1 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 8 8 6 , 9 1 1 n . 2 2 ( N. D. Il l. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i ng T h e Am e r i can H er i t age Col l ege D i ct i onary609 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 0 ) (d e f

in in g “ h a b itu a l” a s , in tera lia , “[e ] s t abl i s hed b y l o n g u s e ; u s u a l ” ) )

. T h u s i tw a s p e r m i s s i b l e ( i f n o tn e c e s s a r y) f o r th e IJ to c o n sid e r th e d u ra tio n o f tim e th a t P a rip o v ic liv e d in S e rb ia

. H avi ng concl u d ed t hatthe I J ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e w as perm issi b le, w e nextcons i derw hetherhi s fac tual fi ndi ngs w er e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant ia l evi dence

. T her e i s no d ispu te that P aripo v ic reside d in S erb ia fo r m o re tha n tw o y ea rs i n a p erm anen t(oratl eastsem i-perm anen t ) dw el l i ng . T hese f a c ts a re s u f

f ic ie n t g iv e n o u r n a rr o w s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . L a stly , P a rip o v ic a rg u e s th a t th e f a c t th a t h e liv e d in Serbi a underdur es s negat es the “ha bi tual ” fi ndi ng. T her e i s no evi dence , how ever , t hathe w as pr event ed fr om l eavi ng Serbi a, and as a r es ul tw e ca nnots ayw e are co m p ell ed t o r eac h a contr aryconcl us i on. T hus , t he l as thabi tual r es i dence d e te rm in a tio n b yth e IJ is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .14 B . P e r se c u tio n in S e r b ia B e c a u se th e IJ p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t S e rb ia is P a rip o v ic ’ s c o u n tryo f

las t h a b itu a l re sid e n c e , w e a n a ly z e h is a sy lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f d e p o rta tio n c laim s a s th e yre late to t hat countr y . T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um on the bas i s of p a s t p e rs e c u tio n , a n a p p lic a n t m u s t s h o w , in tera lia , an i nci dent (o r in c id e n ts) th a t r is e to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e r s e c u t i o n . A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 3 0 F
. 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ); 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )(A ). T u rning fi r s tt o pas tper s ecut i on, Par i povi c cont ends t hatt he e f f o rts o f th e m ili tar yp o lice to c o n sc rip t h im to f ig h t in C ro a tia is s u c h p e rse c u tio n , b u t w e h a v e e x p lain e d th a t itis “ g e n e ra lly a c c e p ted ‘th a t a s o v e re ig n n a tio n e n jo y s th e rig h t to e n f

o rc e its l aw s of cons cr i pt i on, and th at p en al t i es forevas i on ar e not cons i der ed per s ecut i on. ’ ” L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 329 F. 3d 157, 168- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( q u o t i n gM

. A. v . I NS , 899 F. 2d 304, 312 (4th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ) ( en banc )); se e a lso A m b a rts o u m ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F. 3d 85, 93 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[C]c ons cr i pt i on by a s over ei gn n a tio n c a n n o t c o n s titu te p e rs e c u t io n u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ))

. I n addi t i on, t hough Par i povi c a rgu ed befor e the I J and B IA th a t S e rb ia m a yf

o rc ib lyre m o v e h im to C ro a tia, th e re is l i t t l e evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor t t hi s ar gum ent , and i n any even t t here i s con t rary evidence on w hich the IJ r el i ed. H e al so d e ter m in e d th a t th e d ra f t w a s n o lo n g e r in e f

f e c t, an d th is det erm i nat i on has notbeen c hal l enged befo r e us . T hus , theA tt he Janua r y 2002 hear i ng ( at w hi ch t i m e hi s cas e had 5 been pe ndi ng forapp rox im at el yei ghty ear s ) , t he I J deni ed P a rip o v ic’ s la st-m in u te r e q u e st f o r c o n tin u a n c e d u e to h is expert ’ s unavai l abi l i t y . I n vi ew of the mul t i pl e pr i or cont i nuance s , t he fa ctt hatt he I J had advi s ed Par i povi c aboutt he des i r abi l i t yof expe r tt es t i m ony , and t he l ack of anyexpl anat i on f o r w h yc o u n se l h a d f

a iled to ra ise th e e x p e rt’s u n a v a ilab ili ty pr i or t o t he dayof the hea r i ng w hen he s eemi ngl ys houl d have kno wn t o d o s o , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o c o nt i nue t he h e aring v iolated P aripo v ic’s ri g h t t o p roc ed u ral du e p roc e s s . C f. 

### P o n ce-L eiva v. A sh cro

ft , 331 F. 3d 369, 377 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) ( hol di ng that

de ni a lof c ouns e l ’ s requ es t for c onti nuanc e and then proceeding with asylum hearing w ith out c ounsel , where c ouns e lr e que s t e d c ont i nuanc e only two day s be for e he ari ng and fa i l e d t o e xpl a i n hi s abs e nc e , wa s not an ab u se of d iscretio n ).
15 c o n c lu sio n th a t P a rip o v ic n e ith e r w a s p e rse c u ted n o r h a s a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on i n Serbi a i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. M or eover , beca us e he f ai l e dt o e s t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yfor asy lum , P aripo v ic ne ce ss a ri ly also fa il ed to m ee t th e m o re s t r i ngents t andar d fors how i ng a “c l earpr obabi l i t yof per s ecut i on” t o be el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of deport at i on. R e y n o so -L o p ez v . A sh c ro

ft , 369 F. 3d 275, 278 (3d C ir

. , 2004) ( quot i ng IN

S v . S tev ic , 4 6 7 U
. S
. 4 0 7 , 4 2 0 n . 1 3 (19 8 4 ). 516 * * * * * A ccor di ngl y , w e gra nt Par i povi c’ s pet i t i on t o t he ext ent th a t itse e k s to v a c a te th e d e sig n a tio n o f C ro a tia as th e a ltern a te countr yfordepor t at i on, and denythe pet i t i on i n al l other re s p e c ts
.