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 5-14-2008 

# G alo 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 . 06-4874

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 authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " G alo v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1227. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1227NOT 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- 4874

____________ AR BE N GAL O, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an O rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 96- 017- 570) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam K . M ill s

____________ A r gued M ar ch 3, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , F IS H E R a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: M ay14, 2008) T hom as C . B r annen ( A r gued) E liza b e th C . S u rin M o rle y , S u rin & G rif

f in 3 2 5 C h estn u t Street, S u it e 1 3 0 5 -P Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or neys f

orP et i t i oner R i char d M . E vans N ancyE . Fr i edman ( A r gued) M ar i on E . G uyt on U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce2

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 neys f

orR es pondent

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . A rben G al o pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ’ s ”) d ism iss a l o f

h is a p p e a l f

ro m th e d e c isio n o f

th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n y in g h is appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on i ns ofar as i tr el at es t o G al o’ s cl ai m s foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . W e w i l l gr antt he p e t i t i o n wi th r e g a r d t o Ga l o ’ s CA T c l a i m a n d r e ma n d t o th e BI A. I . W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. G al o w as born on J ul y27, 1983, i n A l bani a. H i s fatherbegan pa r t i ci pat i ng i n t he D emocr at i c Partyof A l bani a ( D P) w hen G al o w as a chi l d. G al o beca m e ac t i ve w i th t he D P Y o u th G ro u p a t ag e f o u rte e n . A f

ter A lb a n ia’ s tra n sitio n f ro m c o m m u n ism , p o w e r in the 1 9 9 0 s alt ern ated b etw ee n the S o ciali st Pa rtyan d the D P . In G alo’s v il lage , su p p o rt3

f o r th e c o m m u n ists re m a in s s tro n g . T h e p o lice in th e v ill a g e a re S o c ialist P a rty supp ort ers . I n hi s aff i davi tand hi s t es t i m onybefor e the I J , G al o r el at ed thathi s fami l yw as m i s tr eat ed bec aus e of thei raff i l i at i on w i th the D P. G al o s t at es thati n 1996, he w as beat en and de t ai ned overni ghtbythe pol i ce, w ho acc us ed hi m and hi s fr i ends of

“ n e g a tiv e lya f

f e c tin g th e y o u th o f

A lb a n ia.” In 1 9 9 8 , m e n in p lain c lo th e s ra n sa c k e d h is ho m e and t oo k h i s father t o the poli ce st at i on , w here he w as det ai ned for three day s, b e a ten , an d u n d e rf

e d . In 1 9 9 9 , G a lo p a rticip a ted in a p e a c e f u l D P d e m o n stra tio n in h is vi l l age. T he pol i ce c ame t o t he demonstr at i on and bega n t o arr es tdemonstr at or s . U pon lea rn in g G a lo ’s n a m e , the p o lice b e a t an d k ick e d h im a n d sa id th a t h e sh o u ld re m e m b e r to t el l hi s fathereverythi ng thathappene d. I n M ay1999, G al o’ s fatherbegan r ece i vi ng thr eat s overthe phone thathi s chi l dr en w o u ld b e k id n a p p e d u n les s h e b e g a n su p p o rtin g th e S o c ialist P a rty . H is f a th e r f led to G r eec e i n Sept ember1999 and pr epar ed forthe fa m i l yt o j oi n hi m . G al o, w ho w as s i xt een y ear s ol d, di d notj oi n hi s fatheri n G r eec e i m m edi at el ybeca us e he di d notfee l sca red . Instea d , h e stay ed in h is vil lage w ith h is gran d fa ther. O n N o v em b er 2 4 , 1 9 9 9 , G alo a n d tw o o f h is D P Y o u th G rou p frien d s w ere w a lk in g to a m e e tin g re g a rd in g a n u p c o m in g D P y o u th c o n f e re n c e . T h e ysto p p e d a t a c o n v e n ien c e sto re . G a lo a n d o n e f rie n d w e n t in to th e sto re , b u t th e th ird f rie n d , S a m i, s t opped t o t al k t o a man w ho appr oache d hi m out s i de the s t or e. W hi l e G al o w as pay i ng4

fora s oftdr i nk, he hea r d a guns hot . H e, hi s fr i end, and the s t or ekee perw entout s i de and s aw Sam i l ay i ng on the gr ound, w hi l e the man w ho had bee n t al ki ng t o hi m w as runni ng aw ayw i th a gun i n hi s hand. Sam i di ed fr om the guns hotw ound. G al o r eport ed the in c id e n t to th e p o lice ; h e sa y s th e p o lice d id n o t d o a n yth in g in re sp o n se to h is re p o rt. A t 1 0 :0 0 p .m . th e s a m e d a y , s o m e o n e k n o c k e d o n G a lo ’s g ra n d f a th e r’ s d o o r. W hen G al o’ s gr andfa theropened the door , G al o s aw tw o m en, i ncl udi ng the man w ho h a d k ill e d S a m i. T h e m e n p u sh e d G a lo ’s g ra n d f a th e r a sid e a n d h it h im , sh o o tin g th e ir guns i ns i de the hous e. G al o fl ed, buthe l earned the nextdaythatthe men had r ans acke d the hous e. T heyt ol d G al o’ s gr andfa therthan G al o had “s een t oo m uch” a nd w as “a w itn e ss w h o c o u ld c a u se tro u b le.” T h e yth re a ten e d to k ill G a lo ju st lik e th e yk ill e d h is f rie n d . G a lo b e liev e s S a m i’s m u rd e r w a s p o lit ica llym o tiv a ted , an d h e sa y s th a t p rio r to the m urder, S am i had recei ved threat s that he shou l d cease h i s D P act i vit i es. G al o fl ed A l bani a s i x day s l at erand j oi ned hi s fami l yi n G r eec e, w her e he re m a in e d f

o r th re e y e a rs. H e sta tes th a t h e c o u ld n o t g e t p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c ysta tu s in G re e c e a n d d id n o t f

e e l sa f e th e re b e c a u se th e S o c ialist P a rtyis a c tiv e in G re e c e , as it i s i n A l bani a. G al o ent er ed the U S w i th an al t er ed I t al i an pas s por ti n 2002. H e w as det ai ned and re f e rr e d to a n IJ . O n J u ly 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , G a lo s u b m itte d a n I- 5 8 9 A p p lic a tio n f o r A s y lu m . A f ter a h e a rin g , the IJ f

o u n d G a lo n o t cr e d ib le, d e n ied a ll fo rm s o f re lief , an d o rd e re d h im r e mo v e d t o Al b a n i a . Ga l o a p p e a l e d t o th e BI A.5

T h e B IA sta ted th a t th e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n d id n o t “c o m p o rt w ith a p p lica b le cas el aw i n t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Thi r d C i r cui t . ” The B I A expl ai ned thati n l i ghtof cont empora neous countryr eport s , “w e ca nnotconcl ude thatpol i t i cal v io len c e is o u tsid e th e re a lm o f p o ss ib ili ties in A lb a n ia o r th a t th e a p p lica n t’s s to ryis nece s s ar i l yi ncr edi bl e i n l i ghtof countrycondi t i ons . ” D es pi t e thi s qual i fi ed r ej ect i on of the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatG al o w as not el i gi bl e forr el i ef, agr eei ng w i th t he I J thatther e w as no nexus betw een the per s ecut i on G alo d esc ri b ed an d an yp rotec ted g rou n d . T h e B IA d id n o t discu ss the IJ’s determ i nati on s w i th regard t o w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al and C A T prot ect i on ; nev ertheles s, i td i s mi s s e d Ga l o ’ s e n t i r e a p p e a l . Ga l o f i l e d a t i me l yP e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w. II. T o th e e x t e n tth a t“ th e B I A i s s u e s a d e c i s i o n o n th e m e r i t s a n d n o ts i m p l y a s um m aryaff

i r m ance , w e r evi ew the B I A ’ s , notthe I J ’ s , deci s i on. W e musttr eatthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctas concl us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 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 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T o th e e x ten t th a t th e B IA a d o p ts th e f in d in g s o f

th e IJ , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n s o f b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . C hen v. A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e r evi ew the age ncy ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs underthe def er ent i al “s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e ” s ta n d a rd . G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). U n d e r th is6

sta n d a rd , w e w ill u p h o ld th e f in d in g s o f

th e IJ a n d th e B IA “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . Ga l o a s s e r t s th a tth e BI A e r r e d i n d e t e r mi n i n g th a th e wa s n o te l i g i b l e f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, o r reli ef u n d er the C A T . H e a rgu es th at his p erse cu tors w ere m ot i vat ed byhi s pol i t i cal opi ni on, and ther efor e he qua l i fi es forr el i ef. In o rd e r to q u a lifyf

o r a sy lu m , an in d iv id u a l m u st p ro v e th a t h e h a s “ a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n .” 8 U .S .C § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ). In o rd e r to q u a l i f y f o rw i th h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , th e a p p l i c a n tm u s td e m o n s tr a t e a “ c l e a rp r o b a b i l i ty” th a t p e rs e c u tio n w ill r e s u lt if th e a p p lic a n t is re m o v e d to a p a rt ic u la r c o u n tr y . I . N . S. v. S tev ic , 4 6 7 U . S . 4 0 7 , 4 1 3 (19 8 4 ). I n or dert o qual i fyforr el i ef unde rthe C A T , the appl i cantm us tpr es entevi dence e sta b lish in g “ th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to the p rop o sed co u n tryo f re m o v al. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). “T o rtu re is an ex tr em e f o rm of cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 18. I tcons i s t s of “a nyactbyw hi ch s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng, w hetherphy s i cal orm ent al , i s i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed on a per s on” forpurpos es s uch as puni s hm ent , i nt i m i dat i on, coer ci on, orthe obt ai ni ng of in f o rm a tio n o r a c o n f

e s s io n . I d. A n acti s notcons i der ed t or tur e i f i ti s not“i nfl i ct ed by7

oratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orother per s on act i ng i n an off

i ci al capa ci ty . ” I

d. A . T he B I A concl uded thatG al o di d notqual i fyforas y l um beca us e the per s ecut i on h e e x p e r i e n c e d w a s n o tb a s e d o n o n e o f th e p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d s ( r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, me mb e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n ) . W h e n th e i n tru d e r s c a me to G a lo ’s g ra n d f

a th e r’s h o u se o n th e n ig h t o f S a m i’s m u rd e r, th e yth re a ten e d G a lo beca us e he ha d “s een t oo m uch” a nd w as “a w i tnes s w ho coul d caus e tr oubl e. ” Thus, t he thr eat s w er e bas ed on G al o’ s s t atus as the w i tnes s t o a cr i m e, r atherthan on hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on. G al o ar gues thathe does not“bea rthe unr eas onabl e bur den” of es t abl i s hi ng exac t l yw hythe i ntruder s thr eat ened hi m . H e s t at es thatthei ract i ons w er e mot i vat ed at l eas ti n partbyhi s pol i t i cal opi ni ons , and thi s i s s uffi ci entt o s how per s ecut i on bas ed on o n e o f th e p ro tec ted g ro u n d s. G a lo d o e s n o t cite o u r “ m ix e d m o tiv e ” c a se s, w h ich w o u ld p ro v id e th e s tr o n g e s t s u p p o rt f o r h is a rg u m e n t. See , e. g. , Si ngh v. G onz al es , 406 F. 3d 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 -9 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); A m a n fi v. A sh c ro

ft , 328 F. 3d 719, 727 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . E ven if w e tak e the m ixed m o ti v e c ase s into a cc o u n t, the IJ a n d B IA d eterm ined that G alo’s per s ecut or s w er e notm ot i vat ed byG al o’ s pol i t i cal opi ni on, buti ns t ead bythe fa ctthathe h ad w itn esse d a m u rde r.8

T h e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t G a lo w as notper s ecut ed bas ed on one of the pr ot ect ed gr ounds , and ther efor e w e w i l l not dis turb i t . B ecause G al o’s m i streatm ent w as not based on on e of the prot ect ed g round s, h e d o e s n o tq u a l i f

yf o ra s y l u m. B . In order t o q uali fyfor w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al t o a p art i cularcou ntry , an ali en m ust s how a cl earpr obabi l i tythathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n s uch countryon acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” Zu b e da v . A sh c ro ft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he B I A concl uded that th e re w a s n o n e x u s b e tw e e n th e th re a ts a n d G a lo ’s p o lit ica l o p in io n , so th e re is s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe det erm i nat i on thatG al o does notqual i fyfor w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. C . T h e B IA d ism iss e d G a lo ’s C A T c laim w ith o u t p ro v id in g a n yre a so n in g f o r its deci s i on. W e have expl ai ned: A pet i t i on forpr ot ect i on underthe [CA T ] di ffe r s s i gni fi cant l yfr om pet i t i ons foras y l um orw i thhol di ng of r emoval beca us e the al i en nee d not demonstr at e thathe w i l l be t or tur ed on ac countof a pa r t i cul arbel i ef or im m u ta b le c h a ra c te ri s tic . Ma t t e ro f S

— V— , [2 1 I& N D ec . 1 3 0 6 (B IA 2000) ] . R ather , i n as s es s i ng w hetheran al i en i s m or e l i kel ythan nott o be t or tur ed i n t he pr opos ed countryof r emoval , I N S r egul at i ons i dent i fya nonexcl us i ve l i s tof fa ct or s t o cons i der : ( 1) evi dence of pas tt or tur e . . . ; ( 2) the p o ss ib ili tyth e a lien c o u ld re lo c a te to a n o th e r p a rt o f th e c o u n tryw h e re h is t or tur e i s unl i kel y ; ( 3) evi dence of “gr os s , fl agr antorm as s vi ol at i ons of9

hum an r i ght s ” i n t he countr y ; and ( 4) anyotherr el evantcountrycondi t i ons inf o rm ati o n . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(3). A m a n fi , 328 F. 3d at725. T h e IJ d e n ied G a lo ’s C A T c laim o n th e b a sis o f th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n , b u t th e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t G a lo ’s s to ryw a s “ n o t n e c e ss a rilyin c re d ib le i n l i ghtof countr ycondi t i ons . ” The B I A ’ s concl us i on thatG al o w as notthr eat ened on acc ountof hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on for ecl os es hi s cl ai m s foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , buti s notr el evantt o hi s cl ai m t o C A T r el i ef. W e ar e unabl e t o det erm i ne, bas ed on the r ecor d, w hythe B I A deni ed G al o’ s C A T cl ai m . “I n or derforus t o be abl e t o gi ve m eani ngful r evi ew t o t he B I A ’ s deci s i on, w e musthave s om e i ns i ghti nt o i t s r eas oni ng. ” A w o les i v. A sh c ro

ft , 341 F. 3d 227, 232- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e w i l l r emand so thatthe B I A can s peci fi cal l ycons i derG al o’ s C A T cl ai m and pr ovi de i ns i ghtthatw oul d al l ow us to re v iew its d e c isio n o n a p p e a l. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w i l l w e gr antthe pet i t i on forr evi ew and r emand for fur theragenc yact i on on G al o’ s C A T cl ai m onl y , i n acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on.