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 2-28-2008 

# S aid 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 . 06-3342

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 " S aid v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1510. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1510H onor abl e Petr es e B . T ucker , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, 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. 06- 3342 

### MI CH ELHA BI L T AWFI K S AI D, Peti ti on er v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e G ar cy

( N o. A 95- 831- 837) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February7, 2008 B efore: M C K E E and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and TU C K E R , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: February28, 2008)

OP I NI ONT h e IJ rea ch ed an interl o cu toryd ec isi o n d en y ing S aid a sy lum . T h e IJ 1 i ncorpor at ed heri nt er l ocut orydeci s i on i nt o herl at erdeci s i on deny i ng w i thhol di ng of r e mov a l a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rth e CA T. 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge M i chel H abi l T aw fi k Sai d, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of E gypt , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of th e a f f irm a n c e b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a l (“ B IA ” ) o f a n o rd e r d e n y in g h im asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) . H e ar gues thatthe B I A and i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) w ho hear d hi s cas e err ed

1 bym aki ng an i ncorr ectadver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, fai l i ng t o cons i dercorr obor at i ng evi dence , i ncorr ect l yanal y zi ng hi s C A T cl ai m , and deny i ng hi m due pr oces s . Forthe re a s o n s s e t f

o rt h b e lo w , w e a f

f ir m . I A s w e w rite f

o r th e p a rties p rin c ip a lly , o u r re f e re n c e to f

a c ts is tru n c a ted . S a id arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y1999. H e s ubs equent l yr ece i ved a s tudentvi s a, ext endi ng hi s l egal s t ayi n the U ni t ed St at es unt i l N ovember2001. T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tys erved Sai d w i th not i ce t o appea ri n A pr i l 2003, thus begi nni ng re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . S a i d c o n c e d e d r e mo v a b i l i tya ta h e a r i n g b e f o r e th e I J b u ta p p l i e d 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 th e C A T o n th e b a sis th a t h e is a C o p tic C h ristia n w h o h a s b e e n p e rse c u ted b yE g yp tian a u th o rities b e c a u se o f h is in v o lv e m e n t in gr oups thats eek t o enhanc e the w el far e of thatr el i gi ous m i nor i ty . T he I J deni ed the3

re q u e s te d re lie f

b u t g ra n te d S a id v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . S a id a p p e a led to th e B IA , w h ich a f f irm e d th e o p in io n o f

th e IJ in Ju n e 2 0 0 6 . S a id tim e ly p e titio n s o u r C o u rt f o r r e v ie w . II T h e B I A h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rS a i d ’ s a p p e a l u n d e r8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l u n d e r8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . We g en era ll yrev iew the d ec isi o n o f th e B IA , b u t w h ere , as h ere , the o p inion o f th e IJ e f f e c tiv e ly b e c o m e s th a t o f th e B IA , w e re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . A s hcr of tv. A bdulai , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons for s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . He C h u n C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “U nderthi s defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew , w e mustuphol d the cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on of the B I A orI J 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 . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . H ow ever , w e mayr ever s e a c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n if it is n o t g ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd . D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ). III T he I J found Sai d non- cr edi bl e fors ever al r eas ons . Fi r s t , s he not ed the appa r ent a m p lific a tio n o v e r tim e o f h is te stim o n yre g a rd in g h is 1 9 8 9 a rre st, o b se rv in g th a t h is hear i ng t es t i m onydes cr i bed phy s i cal abus e thathe had notm ent i oned i n pr evi ous in ter v iew s. T h e IJ e m p h a siz e d th a t sh e g a v e S a id m a n yo p p o rtu n iti e s to e x p lain h is4

f a ilu re to d e sc rib e th is a b u se in e a rlier in ter v iew s b u t th a t h e p ro v id e d in a d e q u a te expl anat i ons . D es pi t e as s ur ance s t o the contr arybythe I J , Sai d ul t i m at el ys t at ed that descri pti on s of such ph y si cal abu se could be fo un d in hi s ear l i er appl i cat i on s. Second, the I J poi nt ed outthatal though Sai d t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thatpol i ce cal l ed upon hi m “al l the t i m e, ” he di d notm ake s i m i l aras s ert i ons i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. T he I J obs erved thatthe as y l um appl i cat i on i ndi cat es thatthe pol i ce c eas ed har as s i ng hi m i n 1989, w her eas he t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thathe w as ques t i oned r epea t edl ybetw een 1990 a nd 1999. T hi r d, the I J ci t ed Sai d’ s fai l ur e t o t es t i fycons i s t ent l yr egar di ng the l ength of det ent i on r es ul t i ng fr om hi s arr es t s bythe Egypt i an pol i ce. F o u rth , the IJ n o ted th a t S a id h a d n o t sta ted in h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , as h e d id in hear i ng t es t i m ony , thatthe pol i ce ha d i nt err ogat ed, beat en, and thr eat ened hi m , t el l i ng h i m th a tE g yp tw a s a M u s l i m c o u n try. Fi nal l y , the I J expl ai ned thatSai d’ s t es t i m onyconfl i ct ed w i th St at e D epart m ent report s on E gypt. T ho se r epo rt s i nd i cat e t hat no pa t t ern or pract i ce of persecut i on against C o p tic C h ristia n s e x ists in E g yp t. T h e s e d is c re p a n c ie s le f t th e IJ “ p e rp le x e d a b o u t w h a t th e f a c ts a re in th is c a s e . . . [ a n d ] w o n d e rin g w h e th e r [ S a id ] h a d b e e n a rre ste d a s d e sc rib e d .” A re a so n a b le adj udi cat orcoul d have e val uat ed the r ecor d i n thi s fas hi on. A ccor di ngl y , w e af fi r m t he a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g a s to h is te stim o n yth a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld5

b e p erse cu ted in E g yp t on the b asis o f h is r eli g ion . T h e inc o n sist en cies in S aid’s t es t i m onyequal l yunderm i ne hi s as s ert i ons thathe i s m or e l i kel ythan nott o be s ubj ect ed to to rtu re u p o n re m o v a l to E g yp t. Sai d al s o ar gues thatthe I J err ed byfai l i ng t o cons i derhi s corr obor at i ng evi dence re g a rd in g c o n d iti o n s in E g yp t. T h is a rg u m e n t am o u n ts to th e c laim th a t th e IJ s h o u ld have gi ven more w ei ghtt o Sai d’ s evi dence and l es s w ei ghtt o the St at e D epart m ent r eport s . I tfai l s beca us e a r eas onabl e adj udi cat orcoul d have w ei ghed the evi dence i n t he m annerthe I J di d i n t hi s cas e. W e ar e unper s uaded bySai d’ s ar gum entthatthe I J fai l ed t o keep s epar at e her anal y s i s of Sai d’ s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T . H e i gnor es the I J ’ s s t at ementthats he “c ons i der ed verycar eful l ythe r es pondent ’ s t es t i m ony beca us e the natur e of a C onvent i on cl ai m i s s o di ffe r ent . ” The I J r eas onabl yconcl uded, how ever , thata cl ai m underthe C A T fai l s as r eadi l yas a cl ai m forw i thhol di ng of r emoval i f a pe t i t i onerdoes notconvi nce the pr es i di ng I J “of the truth of hi s fac tual cl ai m s . ” F inally , w e re

ject S aid’s d u e p roc ess a rgu m en t bec au se h e f ail ed to raise itb ef

o re the B IA . 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)( 1) r equ i res the ex hau st i on of ad m i nis trat i ve rem edies , barr i ng us fr om cons i der i ng “part i cul arques t i ons notr ai s ed i n an appe al t o the B oar d. ” Zheng v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 98, 107- 08 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng A l l eyne v. I . N . S. , 879 F .2 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 9 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 )); s ee al s o B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 414 F. 3d 442, 448 ( 3dW e a lso n o te th at S aid d o es n o t argu e tha t th e B IA erred in af firm ing the IJ’s 2 c o n c lu s io n th a t h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w a s tim e -b a rr e d . 6 C i r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe fa i l ur e t o r ai s e due pr oces s ar gum entbefor e B I A i s “fa t al t o o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r ” a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w) . 2 * * * * * We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.