2004 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 11-2-2004 

# Ade n v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1864

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ade n v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 154. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/154NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-1864

___________ ABDI RIZ AK ADEN, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHC ROFT , Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

___________ On Ap peal f rom the B oard of Im migra tion A ppea ls

(No. A76-142-495)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 25, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , AM BR O, a nd V AN AN TW ER PE N, Circu it Judges
. (Fil ed: November 2, 2004)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
.

Abdirizak Aden (“ Petitioner”) petit ions for review of a fi nal order

by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “Board”). The Board affirmed t he decisi on of an2

Immigration Judge ( “IJ”) denyi ng Petitioner as yl um but granti ng him withhol ding of
rem ova l. W e w ill de ny the petit ion
. I.

Petition er is a n ative a nd citiz en of Som alia, and a me mb er of th e min ority sub-cl an Musa Said. In J anuary1991, he and hi s family were att acked in their home by members of a ri val cl an, the Hawiye. Several men walked i nto Peti tioner ’s home, s hot him in the he ad, an d killed two of h is childre n. A fter rec over ing, Pe titioner f led w ith his familyto the c ity

of Kismayu, where theystay ed for sever al day s before fl eeing agai n, this time to a reg ion n ear the Som ali-Ke nyan bo rder. B y Ma rch 1 991 , Petition er and his fam ily move d to a re fug ee ca mp in K enya. In 1 996 Petition er left th e cam p fo r Sou th Af rica, h opi ng t o fin d a b etter life a nd t hen sen d fo r his f am ily, wh o re ma ined beh ind
. Petitioner was gr anted asy lum in South Afri ca on August 12, 1998. Neverthel ess, he found South Africa i nhospit able and i n 1999 he left . Peti tioner eventual ly arri ved in the United States at Newark Internati onal Airport on Jul y 3, 1999.

Upon arrival , Peti tioner was questi oned by i mmigrati on offici als. During that q ues tion ing he f ailed to d isclo se th at he had bee n gr ante d as ylum in S out h A fric a. On Au gust 2 0, 199 9, the Im migra tion an d N aturaliza tion S ervice charg ed P etitioner with removabil ity , cl aiming that he sought to ente r the United State s by f raud or wil ful misrepr esentat

ion and that he la cked vali d entrydocuments. Petitioner conc eded removabil ity

for lac k of vali d entrydocuments but f iled f or asy lum, withholding of3

removal, and protec tion under the Conventi on Against Tort ure (“CAT”). On his a sylum applic ation, Petitioner s tate d under oath t hat he di d not have asy lum stat us in anyother
cou ntry. (A pp. a t 93 8).

The IJ found that Peti tioner had firml y r esettled in Sout h Africa and was thus i neligible for a sylum. The IJ al so found Peti tioner ’s cl aims for wit hholding of
remov al and C AT protection to be not credible. Sp ecifically, the IJ noted that in swo rn statem ents P etitioner repea tedly failed to disclo se that h e had been gran ted asylum in South Africa to immigration offi cial s, on hi s asy lum appli cati on, or t o the IJ at sever al prev ious h earing s. (Ap p. at 57 –59 ). Thu s the IJ d enied those claim s as w ell.

On appe al, the B oard fou nd th at Petition er had establish ed a c redible claim of past pe rsecution and a well-fou nded f ear of fu ture persecution based o n the Janu ary 1991 atta ck. The Board the refore found hi m eligi ble for a sylum. However, in l ight of a then-r ecent cas e from thi s Court, the Board re manded for a findi ng on whether Peti tioner
wa s pre clud ed f rom rece ivin g as ylum by firm rese ttlem ent in So uth Af rica.

On remand, the government did not pursue the firm re settlement i ssue and, despit e Petit

ioner’ s eli gibil ity

for asy lum, i nstead as ked the IJto denyasy lum as a matter of discr etion. Finding t hat Peti tioner

knowingly submitted an asy lum appli cati on contai ning a fal se statement and t hat he fai led to testi fy t

ruthful ly concerni ng his asylum stat us in South Afri ca, the IJ deni ed Petit ioner’ s request

for asy lum as a matter of discr etion. (App. at 38) . The IJ di d, however, grant Petiti oner’s request for withholdi ng4

of removal t o Somalia. (App. at 39) . The Board summaril y affirmed the deci sion of the IJ and this appealfollowed. II.

This Co urt has jurisdictio n to rev iew a final o rder b y the Bo ard p ursua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Although we ordinarily review the decisi on of the Board, when the Bo ard def ers to the I J w e rev iew the I J’s d ecis ion inste ad. Abd ulai v. A shcro ft , 239 F.3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3rd Cir. 2001). We must uphol d a discr etionary grant or denial of asy lum unl ess it is “m anif estly co ntra ry to the law and an a bus e of disc retio n.” 8 U.S .C. § 1252(b )(4)(D). As for the IJ’s finding s of fact, w e will upho ld them if they are “support ed by r easonable , subst antia l, a nd probati ve evidence on t he record c onsider ed as a whole.” I.N.S. v. Eli as-Zacari as , 502 U.S . 478 , 481 n. 1 ( 199 2) (q uot ation om itted ). A. The AttorneyGeneral has t he discr etionary power to grant asy lum to an alien w ho q ualifies as a “re fug ee.” 8 U.S .C. § 1 158 (b)(1); Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.3d 228, 234 n. 1 (3r d Cir. 2003) . A refugee i s an indi vidual unable or unwil ling to return to his or her home country “bec ause of pers ecuti on or a well- founded fear of per secuti on on account of r ace, r eligi on, nationali ty , membershi p in a part icular soci al group, or poli tica l opinion. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101( a)(42) (A). Quali fication as a “refugee,” however , does not automati call y entitl e an ali en to a gra nt of asy lum. Ins tead, it i s withi n the dis creti on of the Attorney General(and by proxy the Board) to determi ne whether an al ien meri ts that5

gra nt. I.N.S. v. Cardoza- Fonseca , 480 U .S. 421 , 428 n . 5 (19 87); see Dia , 334 F.3d at 234 n. 1. I n making thi s determinati on, the Board must examine t he tota lit y of t he circu ms tanc es. In re H- , 21 I. & N. Dec. 337, 347 (1996). It must give heed t o any compelli ng humanitarian consi derati ons that would aris e should t

he appli cant be r eturned to a c oun try wh ere h e or she has bee n pe rsec uted in th e pa st. Id . In fac t, “ the danger of persecution shoul d general ly outweigh al l but t he most egregi ous of advers e factor s.” M atter of P ula , 19 I . & N. D ec. 4 67, 4 74 ( 198 7) (s upe rsed ed b y statut e on oth er g rou nds ). The burden of est ablis hing that a favorabl e exerci se of dis creti on is warra nted fal ls on the asylum app lican t. Id .; In re H- , 21 I. & N. Dec. at 347. B. The IJ fou nd th at Petition er mis led the cour t by repea tedly failing to disc lose his a sylum statu s in S out h A fric a at s eve ral im mig ratio n he arin gs. (A pp. a t 38 ). In addition, t

he IJ found that Peti tioner knowingly submitted an asy lum appli cati on contai ning a fal se statement: that he had not rec eived asy lum in anyother count ry . (App. at 38). Petitioner cha llenge s these findings of fact, apparent ly arguing t hat the y ar e not
su ppo rted by su bs ta nt ia l e vi de nc e. To t he ex te ntth at

is Pet it io ne r’ s arg ume nt , w e disagr ee. The rec ord demonstr ates t hat on sever al occas ions, while under oath, Pet iti oner faile d to disc lose that h e ha d be en g ran ted a sylum in S out h A fric a. (S ee A pp. a t 46 1). Moreover, Peti tioner

admits t hat he made a fal se statement on hi s asy lum appli cati on,stating “[i ]t was a bi g mistake to lie. ” (App. at 941) . These fi ndings ar e support ed by

sub st antia l e vi den ce a nd we wil l u pho ld th em.

Bas ed on the fin ding that Pe titioner f ailed to disclos e his as ylum statu s in South Africa, the IJ , as a matter of di scretion, de nied Peti tioner asy lum in the United States. P etitioner challe nges this ho lding a s we ll. He stre sses tha t if sent b ack to Som alia he w ould face perse cution . An d sinc e “the dang er of p ersecu tion sh ould gene rally outweigh al l but t

he most egregi ous of advers e factor s,” M atter of P ula , 19 I. & N. Dec. at 47 4, P etitio ner con tend s tha t the I J’s d enia l of a sylum wa s an abu se o f dis creti on. Again, we disagree. Because he has been granted withholdi ng of removal as to Somali a, Petitioner’ s argument i s whollyirr elevant . By s tatute he cannot be s ent back t o that
cou ntry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) (3)(A). Thus, the “danger of per secuti on” is not a factor in this ca se. A bsen t this dan ger, an d giv en P etitioner ’s repe ated f ailure to disclos e his grant of a sylum in South Africa , the IJ’s decisi on was not an abuse of di scretion. III. Petitioner has not demonstr ated that the IJ’s discr etionary denial of asy lum
was an ab us e o f d is cr etio n. We the re fo re de nyth e p etit io n f orre vi ew.