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 8-26-2008 

# P rok op et s 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 . 07-2801

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 " P r o kope ts v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 625. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/625NOT 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- 2801

________________ V A LEN TI N M I K A I LO V I CH PRO K O PETS, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

________________ O n R evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng

( N o. A 44- 817- 459)

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t20, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2008)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM V al ent i n M i kai l ovi ch Pr okopet s , a U kr ani an nat i ve and c i t i zen, pet i t i ons for r evi ew of a f

i nal or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) vaca t i ng theB efor e the B I A , Pr okopet s di d notchal l enge the I J ’ s fi ndi ng on t he as y l um or 1 w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l cla im s a n d d o e s n o t ra ise th o se iss u e s o n a p p e a l. -2- Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s g ra n t o f re lie f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). Pr okopet s w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es on a vi s a i n Sept ember1996. T he G overnm ents ubs equent l ychar ged hi m as r emovabl e forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance and fortw o orm or e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. H e conc eded r emovabi l i ty , buts oughtas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and re lie f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). In itia lly, th e IJ d e c lin e d to g ra n t a n yre lie f a n d o rd e re d P ro k o p e ts re m o v e d . Pr okopet s appea l ed t o t he B I A , w hi ch di r ect ed the I J t o r ei s s ue hi s or dert o corr ect i nadequa ci es i n t he ea r l i erdeci s i on. T he I J t ook addi t i onal evi dence , then i s s ued a ne w ru l i n g d e n y i n g t h e a s y l u m a n d wi t h h o l d i n g c l a i ms b u tg r a n t i n g r e l i e f u n d e rth e CA T. T he G o v e rn m e n t ap p e a led to th e B IA . T h e B IA su sta in e d th e a p p e a l, ho ld in g th a t P ro k o p e ts w as n o t entit led to w ith h o lding u n d er the C A T b ec au se h e h ad n o t sho w n that itw as m o re l i kel yt han nott hathe w oul d be s i ngl ed outforharm i n U kr ai ne. Pr okopet s appea l ed the 1 B IA ’s d e c is io n to th is c o u rt . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . B ecaus e the bas i s for re m o v a l is P ro k o p e ts’ c o n v ictio n f o r a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , o u r ju risd ictio n is lim ited to “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw . ” I d. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) - ( D ) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346-3-

(3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T o o b tain re lief

u n d e r th e C A T , an a p p lica n t m u st e sta b lish th a t itis m o re lik e ly t han nott hathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved. T our e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 317 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). P ro k o p e ts le f t th e U k ra in e w h e n h e w a s a p p ro x im a telytw e lv e y e a rs o ld and has notr etur ned s i nce. Pr okopet s ’ es s ent i al cl ai m i s thathi s s t atus as a r eturni ng cr i m i nal t o t he U kr ai ne w oul d m ark hi m as an ea s yt ar getfora corruptnat i onal pol i ce force w i t h a h i st oryof si ng l i ng ou tand t orturi ng kn ow n cri m i nals t o o btai n fals e con fessi on s. P rokop et s al so argues t hat he w ou l d b e a t argetbased o n h i s w i fe’s Judais m an d h is pe rce ived w ea lth as a n im m igran t r eturn ing fro m the U n it ed S tat es. H e f ea rs im p ri s o n m e n t, a b u s e , to rt u re , a n d p o s s ib le d e a th . T he B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatPr okopet s ’ fea rof det ent i on upon hi s r eturn t o t he U ni t ed St at es w as t oo s pecul at i ve t o w arr antr el i ef unde rthe C A T i s s uppor t ed by su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . “T h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f is o n th e a p p lica n t . . . to e sta b lish th a t itis m o re li k elythat n o t th at he o r she w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed to the p rop o sed co u n try of r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . W hi l e Pr okopet s pr ovi ded vol um i nous evi dence on t he pervas i venes s of pol i ce c or rupt i on and t or tur e i n t he U kr ai ne, he di d nots how t hat it i s lik e lyth a t he w o u ld b e su b jec t to su c h to rtu re . P ro k o p e ts p ro v id e d o n lyth e a f f id a v it and t est i m on yof N i cko l ai B utkevi ch, a scholarw ho stud i es form er Sov i etrepubli cs, s t at i ng t hati tw as pos s i bl e thatpol i ce i n t he U kr ai ne w oul d m ark hi m as “the per fec t u su al su sp ec t t o h an g an u n so lved ca se o n . ” A s the G o v ern m en t po ints ou t, h o w ev er,-4-

B u tk e v ich w a s u n a b le to sta te w ith a n yc e rta in tyw h e th e r it w a s lik e lyth a t P ro k o p e ts w oul d be det ai ned and t or tur ed. Fur t her , no evi dence w as pr es ent ed as t o how the U kr ani an governm entorl ocal pol i ce w oul d become aw ar e thatPr okopet s w as r emoved fr om t he U ni t ed St at es forcr i m i nal act i vi t y . Fi nal l y , none of the document s he s ubm i t t ed m ent i on oral l ude t o t he det ent i on and t or tur e of U kr ani an nat i onal s r emoved fr om the U ni t ed St at es . T hus , Pr okopet s ’ bel i ef thathe c o u ld b e p erc eive d as w ea lth yo r c o u ld be t or tur ed i n or dert o confe s s t o a cr i m e he di d notcomm i tw as , w i t houtfur t herpr oof, p laus iblyrejected b ythe B IA . S ee S av ch u ck v . M u k ase y , 5 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 4 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). F o r t h e a b o v e -s ta te d re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .