2006 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 4-10-2006 

# B rown 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 . 05-2024

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_2006

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 2006 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 " B r own v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1282. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1282A l be r t o R. G on z a l e s i s s ub s t i tut e d f orhi s pr e de c e s s or , J oh n Ash c r of t , a s U . S. * A t t orneyG ener al pur s uantt o R ul e 43( c) ( 2) , Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. T he H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 05- 2024 P R I N C E B R O WN

Pet i t i oner v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es *

R es pondent Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 79- 774- 402) Im m i grat i on Judg e: D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2006 B efor e: R O T H and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges , and R O D R I G U E Z , D i s tr i ctJ udge ** (F il ed : A p ri l 10 , 2 0 0 6 )2 OP I NI ON A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge Pr i nce Brow n, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G hana, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or der of 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 the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons bel ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. T h e p a rties a re f

a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts a n d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry , so w e w ill o n ly br i efl yr evi s i tthem her e. B r ow n i s a 28- y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of G hana a nd w as born i n C ape Coaston D ece m ber8, 1976. I n 1996, he gr aduat ed fr om a t echni cal s chool w her e he ha d s tudi ed ai rcondi t i oni ng and r efr i ger at i on. H e l at erm oved t o Si err a Leone, b u t r e tu rn e d to C a p e C o a s t in o r a b o u t 1 9 9 8 w h e n c iv il u n re s t in S ie rr a L e o n e e s c a la te d . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 , B ro w n ra n in to v a rio u s p ro b lem s in C a p e C o a st a n d m o v e d to h is m other ’ s her edi t aryvi l l age of A m om a, G hana, w hi ch i s l ocat ed s i x ors even hour s fr om C ape Coastbyaut om obi l e. O ne dayi n N ovember2000, w hi l e B r ow n w as i n hi s bedr oom w i th h i s gi rl fri end , a group of f et i sh pri est s fr om the T utuase tri be cam e i nto hi s hou seB ro w n c a lls th e s e m e n “ re lig io u s p o lic e ,” a n d w e w ill a ls o re f e r t o th e m b yth is te rm . 1 I ti s i m por t antt o not e, how ever , thatther e i s no s ugges t i on thatthes e men actual l yhad a n yg o v e rn m e n t au th o rity . W e in terp re t th e u se o f th e ter m “ p o lice ” b yB ro w n to re f e r to th e f u n c tio n a n d a u th o ri ty o f th e s e m e n w ith in th e re lig io n .

3 a n d d ra g g e d h im to th e stre e t. T h e re , the yb o u n d h is a rm s a n d leg s a n d sp rin k led h is 1 bodyw i th a w hi t e pow der , w hi ch B r ow n t es t i fi ed w as the tr adi t i onal w ayof anoi nt i ng a new chi ef f

et i s h pr i es t . B r ow n’ s uncl e had be en the vi l l age’ s chi ef f et i s h pr i es tand B ro w n w a s n e x t in lin e to su c c e e d h im . U n b e k n o w n st to B ro w n , h is u n c le h a d re c e n tly p a ss e d a w a ya n d , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith T u tu a se tra d iti o n , h is d e a th h a d b e e n k e p t a s e c re t. B ro w n w a s th e n c a rrie d to a sp e c if ic lo c a tio n in th e b u sh , w h e re h e w a s to re m a in al one fors even da y s w i thoutfood orw at er . I f he s ur vi ved, he w oul d under go a c e re m o n ial b a p tism a n d b e c o m e th e n e w c h ief f e tish p rie st. H e w a s to ld th a t in o rd e r to become the new chi ef pr i es t , how ever , he had t o be a “ natur al ” man, w hi ch means thathe h a d to b e u n c ir c u m c is e d . If h e w a s “ u n n a tu ra l,” i.e ., c ir c u m c is e d , h e w o u ld b e k ille d . A ccor di ng t o T utuas e tr adi t i on, he w oul d notbe i ns pect ed unt i l the bapt i s m cer emonyat the en d o f t he seve n d ay s. B ro w n w a s in f

a c t circ u m c ise d a s a c h ild . H e w a s ra ise d C h ristia n a n d p re se n tly bel ongs t o t he M or m on C hur ch. B efor e the I J , B r ow n t es t i fi ed thathe di d notw antt o be a f eti sh p ri est, b u t th at he w o u ld n o t be a ll o w ed to ref u se b ec au se itw as a h ere d it ary pos i t i on. I ndeed, B r ow n t es t i fi ed thati f he doe s notbecome the new pr i es tand r emai ns al i ve, the h eredi t aryl i ne w i l l be b roken. Th e l ocal fol l ow ers w i l l hav e t o w ai tt en y ears ,4

s acr i fi ce tw o cow s and pr epar e the bl ood of a l eopar d t o s t arta new l i neage forthe hi gh pr i es ts ucce s s i on. W h ile B ro w n w a s in th e b u sh , h is g irlfr ien d re tu rn e d to C a p e C o a st a n d to ld h is m otherw hathad happe ned. B r ow n’ s m otherr eal i zed thathe w oul d be ki l l ed w hen the otherfet i s h pr i es t s di s cover ed thathe w as ci r cumci s ed, s o s he s enthi s br othert o r es cue hi m . O n the fi fth dayof hi s capt i vi tyi n the bus h, B r ow n w as r es cued byhi s br otherand a f ri e n d , a lo n g w ith s o m e o th e r m e n f ro m th e v illa g e w h o w e re e n lis te d to h e lp . A ft erhi s r es cue, B r ow n and hi s br otherm oved t o C ot e d’ I voi r e i n D ece m ber2000, and r emai ned ther e forfi ve mont hs . T heythen fl ew t o M exi co, i nt endi ng t o s eek a s y l um i n the U ni t ed St at es . O n J une 9, 2001, B r ow n w as appr ehende d att empt i ng t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es . H e w as turned overt o the San Y s i dr o Por tE nfor cementT eam and in ter v iew e d . H e w a s th e n re -in ter v iew e d o n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 , an d se rv e d w ith a n o tice to appea ron J une 20, 2001. O n D ece m ber12, 2001, B r ow n fi l ed an appl i cat i on foras y l um a n d w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. On J u l y2 , 2 0 0 3 , th e I J i s s u e d a n o r d e rd e n y i n g Br o wn ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l an d re lief

u n d e r C A T . T h e IJ m a d e a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fin d ing , cit ing B row n ’s un tru thf u l dem ea n o r an d inco n sist en cies b etw ee n B row n ’s stat em en ts t o b o rde r au tho ri ti es a n d h is t esti m o n yb ef o re the im m igrati o n co u rt . T h e IJ found thatB r ow n had l i ed i n courtand fi l ed a f r i vol ous appl i cat i on foras y l um . See 8 U . S. C . § 1158( d) ( 6) ( s t at i ng thatan appl i cantw ho fi l es a fr i vol ous appl i cat i on s hal l be5

p e rm a n e n tlyin e lig ib le f o r re lief ). T h e IJ a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t B ro w n ’s a p p lica tio n w o u ld f a il ev e n if

h e w e re f

o u n d c re d ib le b e c a u se : (1 ) a n yp e rse c u tio n h e f a c e s u p o n re tu rn to G hana w as noton acc ountof hi s r el i gi on; ( 2) ther e i s no pr oof thatthe governm entof G hana i s unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o pr ot ectB r ow n; and ( 3) he ca n avoi d the per s ecut i on by re lo c a tin g w ith in G h a n a . B r ow n s ubs equent l yappea l ed t o the B I A . O n M ar ch 2, 2005, the B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng and the fi ndi ng of fr i vol ous nes s , butnonethel es s di s m i s s ed the appe al . T he B I A found thatB r ow n had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a w el l - founded f earof persecut i on on accou nt of a prot ect ed g round , and i texp res sl yagreed w i th “the [IJ ’s ] d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e re s p o n d e n t h a s f a ile d to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f f o r a s y lu m .” II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overan appe al fr om a fi nal or derof the B I A aff i r m i ng a deci s i on of the I J t o denyan al i en’ s as y l um appl i cat i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) ; s ee B e rish a j v . A sh c ro f

t, 37 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 1 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A lth o u g h th e B IA a g re e d w ith the I J ’ s deci s i on t o denyr el i ef, i tdi d notexpr es s l yadoptordefe rt o the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs . T he B IA in ste a d e x p re ss e d d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g , b u t sta ted in a c o n clus o ryfa sh ion that B row n h ad fa il ed to d em o n str ate e ith er p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on i f he w er e r eturned t o G hana. I n cas es s uch as thi s – w her e the B I A m er el yexpr es s es agr eementw i th the I J ’ s ul t i m at e di s pos i t i on, but does noti ndi cat e thati ti s defe r r i ng t o orr el y i ng upon the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs – the fi nal or der6

w e revi ew i s the d eci si on of the B IA , no tthe d eci si on of the IJ . S ee V oci v. G on zal es, 4 0 9 F . 3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng i t s det erm i nat i on of w hetheran al i en has a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence sta n d a rd . X ie v . A sh c ro f t, 35 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U n d e r th a t sta n d a rd , this C ou rtw i l l up ho l d the fi nd i ng s of t he B IA un l ess the ev i den ce “no ton l ysupp ort s a co n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -48 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he A t t orneyG ener al has the di s cr et i onarypow ert o gr antas y l um t o an al i en w ho qual i fi es as a r efuge e w i thi n t he meani ng of 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 ). A ref

u g ee is “an yp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n tryo f su ch p erso n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . an d 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 u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to av ail h im self o r he rself o f th e p rotec ti o n o f, th at co u n tryb ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in 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 qual i fyas per s ecut i on forpurpos es of as y l um , the al i en mustther efor e s how that : ( 1) t he harm he ors he fa ces i s s uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o qual i fyas per s ecut i on; ( 2) i ti s “on ac count of” one of the s t atut or i l y - enumer at ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) i ti s “comm i t t ed ei therbythe governm entorbyfor ces thatthe governm enti s ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” See M ul anga v. A s hcr oft , 349 F. 3d 123, 132 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he al i en bea r s the bur den7

o f p rov ing eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a). T h e th re sh o ld f

o r e sta b lish in g e lig ib ili tyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l an d e lig ib ili ty underC A T i s even hi gherthan thatfores t abl i s hi ng ent i t l ementt o as y l um . See Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 3 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2)). III . A s not ed above , t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , B r ow n m us tdemonstr at e that the per s ecut i on he fa ces w i l l be “c om m i t t ed ei therbythe governm entorbyfor ces thatt he g o v e rn m e n t is e ith e r u n a b le o r u n w illin g to c o n tr o l.” M ulanga, 34 9 F . 3d at13 2; s ee al so A bdi l l e, 242 F. 3d at494. W her e vi ol ence i s “pr i m ar i l yw r oughtbyfel l ow ci t i zens ” r ather th a n “ g o v e rn m e n t ac tio n o r a c q u ies c e n c e ,” a n a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m w ill b e d e n ied . L ie v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 -5 3 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H er e, the evi dence pr es ent ed s i m pl ydoes notcompel the conc l us i on thatthe G hani an governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o pr ot ectB r ow n fr om the Tutuas e “r el i gi ous p o li ce . ” W e h av e e x am ined the e n ti re rec o rd a n d w e c an o n lyfin d tw o instan ce s w h ere B ro w n a s s e rt e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t o f G h a n a w a s u n a b le o r u n w illin g to p ro te c t h im . F i rs t , i n h i s appli cat i on for asy l um and w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al he st at es: T he governm entof G hana w i l l noti nt ervene on mybehal f. W e ar e t al ki ng a b o u t a trib a l re lig io u s m a tter, a n d th e c u sto m in G h a n a is th a t ea c h trib e is in d e p e n d e n t as to its h a n d lin g o f its re lig io u s b e lief

s. E v e n if

it res u lts in the dea th of a mem berforvi ol at i on of i t , the governm entw i l l noti nt er cede o n a c itiz e n ’s b e h a lf. (A p p . A t 2 8 5 .)Forexampl e, the D epart m entof St at e’ s C ountryR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces 2 i n G hana f

or2002 s t at es thatG hani an l aw pr ohi bi t s i nvol unt arys ervi tude and that governm entagenc i es have c ampai gned ac t i vel yagai ns tT r okos i , w hi ch i s a tr adi t i onal f o rm o f re lig io u s s e rv itu d e w h e re y o u n g w o m e n a re f o rc e d to se rv e f

e tish p rie sts f

o r u p to th re e y e a rs. T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f S tate ’s C o u n tryR e p o rt o n H u m a n R ig h ts P ra c tice s in G h a n a f o r 2 0 0 1 a lso re c o u n ts a n in c id e n t in 2 0 0 0 w h e re th e g o v e rn m e n t f o rc ib ly i m m uni zed c hi l dr en atan A pos t ol i c Fai th of K pal exos e chur ch aga i ns tpol i o even though thei rfai th forbi ds the us e of orthodox m edi ci ne. T hes e i ns t ance s of governm ent in ter v e n tio n u n d e rm in e B ro w n ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e G h a n ian g o v e rn m e n t re f u se s to i nt er fer e i n tr adi t i onal r el i gi ous aff ai r s . M or eover , even i f w e w er e t o as s um e thatthe G hani an governm entw oul d be hes i t antt o i nt ervene i n the r el i gi ous aff ai r s of the rur al vi l l age of

A m om a, ther e i s no evi dence thatthe G hani an governm entw oul d s how the s ame i ndi ffe r ence i f Tut uas e “r el i gi ous pol i ce” came t o the r el at i vel ym etr opol i t an ci tyof C a p e C o a st, w h ich is s ix o r se v e n h o u rs b yc a r f ro m A m o m a , to a b d u c t an d p o ten tially m u rde r B row n . C f. 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(1 )(i )(B ) (pro v iding that a p resu m p ti o n o f f u ture 8 Second, dur i ng the J une 13, 2001 cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew B r ow n w as as ked w hetherthe G hani an author i t i es can he l p hi m . H i s r es pons e w as : “N o, theydo notget in v o lv e d in th e se m a tters . T h e yw o u ld n o t b e a b le to p ro tec t m e b e c a u se th e yw o u ld resp ec t th e trad it ion s an d law s o f th is r eli g ion . ” (A p p . at 18 5 . ) W e a re n o t persu ad ed that thes e tw o b ald a sserti o n s, n eith er o f w h ich w ere a p art of B r ow n’ s t es t i m onybefor e the I J , ar e s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the r equi s i t e governm ent al nexus . B r ow n nevert es t i fi ed ors ugges t ed thathe s oughtpr ot ect i on of the governm entor th a t su c h p ro tec tio n w a s n o t af f o rd e d h im w h e n it w a s s o u g h t. H e h a s n o t re f e rre d u s to anycountryr eport s , new s paperart i cl es orotherobj ect i ve evi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe G h a n ian g o v e rn m e n t’s d e f e re n c e to tra d iti o n a l re lig io u s p ra c tice s is so g re a t th a t itw o u ld noti nt ervene on hi s behal f t o pr eventT utuas e “r el i gi ous pol i ce” fr om abduct i ng and u l t i m a t e l y m u r d e r i n g h i m . I n d e e d , th e o b j e c t i v e e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d i s t o th e c o n tr a r y. 2p e rse c u tio n m a yb e re b u tted if th e G o v e rn m e n t sh o w s th a t th e a p p lica n t co u ld a v o id fu ture h arm b yreloc ati n g to a d iffe ren t part of the c o u n try ). 9 W e ther efor e fi nd thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng as y l um i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . F o r la rg e lyth e sa m e re a so n s, w e a lso f in d th a t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e BI A’ s d e n i a l o f

wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rCA T. I V. H aving co ncluded that B row n fail ed to est abli sh t he requ i si t e go vernm ental nex us, w e w i l l notaddr es s the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entthatB r ow n w as notper s ecut ed “on acc ountof” one of the s t atut or i l y - enumer at ed fa ct or s . W e have cons i der ed al l the c o n te n tio n s p re s e n te d b yth e p a rt ie s a n d c o n c lu d e th a t n o f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. T h e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .