2005 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 11-29-2005 

# Amj a d 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 . 04-3709

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_2005

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 2005 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
" Am j a d v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 199. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/199NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 04- 3709, 04- 4647 

### RAFI Q A MJAD andAS TE R A MJAD , Peti ti on er s

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the 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 ( A 95 467 602, A 95 467 603) A r gued O ct ober24, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es, and TH O M PSO N , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: N ovember29, 2005) M i chae l M orr one ( A r gued) B l oom i ngt on, I N 47401 A t t orneyforPet i t i oner Pet erD . K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al C hr i s t opherC . Ful l er Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el

* H on. A nne E. T hom ps on, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.Pet i t i oner s not e thatM r. R af i q’ s fi r s tand l as tname have 1 been r ever s ed in the ca s e capt i on and r eques tthatthe capt i on be c o r r e c t e d i f p o s s i b l e . ( P e t . Br . 2 ) F o rp u rp o s e s o f th i s o p i n i o n , we w i l l us e t he offi ci al cas e capt i on and r efe rt o the mal e pet i t i oneras “M r . A m j ad. ” 2 J onathan Pot t er J i l l Pt ace k, ( A r gued) T r i al A t t orney U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t orney s forR es pondent OP I NI ON SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i oner s R afi q A m

j ad and hi s w i fe A s t erA m j ad s eek r evi ew of the fi nal or der 1 i s s ued bythe 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 det erm i nat i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng pet i t i oner s ’ appl i cat i on foras y l um , appl i cat i on for wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l t o P a k i s t a n , a n d r e q u e s tf o rr e l i e f u n d e rAr t i c l e T h r e e o f

th e UN 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 p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. T he A m

j ads ar e nat i ves and ci t i zens of Paki s t an. T heyent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on J une 31, 2001 on vi s i t or s vi s as , butover s t ay ed thei rappr oved per i od of s t ayand fi l ed for as y l um on M ay17, 2002. O n N ovember5, 2002, the I N S i s s ued N ot i ces t o A ppearI n r efe r r i ng t o the “I m an, ” w e us e the s pel l i ng adopt ed by 2 the IJ. 3 ( “N T A ”) char gi ng thatthe A m j ads w er e r emovabl e al i ens w ho had r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es w i thoutauthor i zat i on. A tthe i ni t i al r emoval hear i ng on D ece m ber3, 2002, th e Amj a d s c o n c e d e d r e mo v a b i l i tyb u tr e n e we d th e i ra p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T pr ot ect i on. A ta hea r i ng befor e an I J , M rA m j ad t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s w i fe f l ed Paki s t an b e c a u s e th e yw e re C h ri s tia n s liv in g in a p re d o m in a te ly M u s lim c o u n tr ya n d , a s s u c h , su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n . M r. A m jad sta ted th a t h e w a s b o rn a n d b a p tize d a C h ristia n in Paki s t an and thathi s par ent s and gr andpar ent s w er e al s o C hr i s t i ans . H e furthert es t i fi ed that he had at t end ed a M et ho dis tC hu rch i n P akis t an an d thathe w as ordai ned a M et ho dis t p a sto r in 1 9 9 5 a f

ter a tten d in g p a sto ra l train in g a t th e M e th o d ist In d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l in Paki s t an. M r s . A m

j ad al s o t es t i fi ed thats he w as born C hr i s t i an and ha d att ended a M e th o d is t C h u rc h in P a k is ta n . M r . A m j ad t es t i fi ed thathe had w or ked as a M ethodi s tpas t ori n Paki s t an fr om 1 9 9 5 t o 2 0 0 0 , d u r i n g wh i c h p e r i o d M u s l i ms h a d o p p o s e d a n d th r e a t e n e d h i m. He t est i fi ed thatthe leader of t he m osqu e (i . e. , “Im an”) i n a v i l l age w here he served as a 2 f u ll-ti m e p a sto r to ld h im “ h e c o u ld n o t u se lo u d sp e a k e rs a n d . . . sh o u ld n o t h o ld B ib le stu d ies ,” a n d th a t o n o n e o c c a sio n th e sa m e Im a n a n d a g ro u p o f in d iv id u a ls s to p p e d h im on hi s w ayhom e fr om pr eac hi ng and punctur ed hi s m ot or cy cl e t i r es . A pp. at20.4

M r . A m j ad furthert es t i fi ed thathe w as tr ans ferr ed t o the ci tyof Lahor e bec aus e of the pr obl ems he w as fac i ng, thathi s par ent s m oved w i th hi m due t o s i m i l arpr obl ems, and th a t w h ile in L a h o re h e sta rte d a p re -sc h o o l f o r y o u n g c h ild re n in a b u ild in g c o n n e c ted to hi s chur ch and a s ew i ng s chool fory oung w om en thatw as run byhi s w i fe. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe s ew i ng s chool enr ol l ed tw enty - ei ghtgi r l s , fourof w hom w er e M us l i m , and that th e M u slim stu d e n ts to ld th e ir p a re n ts th a t th e yw e re b e in g f o rc e d to p a rticip a te in C hr i s t i an ce r emoni es . B oth A m j ads t es t i fi ed thatbeca us e of thi s , theys t art ed r ece i vi ng thr eat eni ng phone ca l l s and s om e M us l i m boy s had fol l ow ed M r s . A m j ad home and t r i ed to attack h er, w h ich p rob lem s ev en tuallyesc alated to the p o int th at th e A m jads w ere f o rc e d to c lo s e b o th s c h o o ls . A tthe conc l us i on of the t es t i m ony , the I J i s s ued an opi ni on fi ndi ng thatthe A m j ads ’ t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e. A l though the I J s t at ed that“the courtw i l l t ake a d m in istra tiv e n o tice th a t d u rin g th e se tim e s C h ristia n s a re in a p re c a rio u s p o sitio n in Paki s t an, ” s he conc l uded thatthe A m j ads had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h thattheyw er e bei ng per s ecut ed forbei ng C hr i s t i ans and deni ed thei rappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l a n d C A T p ro te c tio n . T he I J not ed thatthe A m j ads w er e bas i ng thei rcl ai m of pas tper s ecut i on and fe ar o f lik e lyf u tu re p e rse c u tio n n o t ju st o n th e f a c t th a t th e yw e re C h ristia n s, b u t o n th e f a c ts thattheyfac ed gr eat erper s ecut i on beca us e M r . A m j ad w as a M ethodi s tpas t orand that theyboth pl ay ed a vi s i bl e r ol e i n t he M ethodi s tC hur ch. T he I J w as es peci al l ycr i t i cal of5

th e A m jad s’ p e rc e iv e d lac k o f

k n o w led g e a b o u t th e M e th o d ist C h u rc h in lig h t o f th e ir p u rp o rt e d le a d e rs h ip ro le s . T he I J ques t i oned M r . A m j ad dur i ng hi s t es t i m onyaboutvar i ous as pect s of the M ethodi s tfai th. M r . A m j ad w as unabl e t o i dent i fythe founde rof the M ethodi s tC hur ch, th e re lig io n o f

J e s u s C h ri s t, o r t h e m o s t s ig n if ic a n t e v e n t in h is f

a v o ri te b o o k o f

th e B ib le . ( A pp. 34- 36) B as ed on the I J ’ s vi ew thatM r . A m j ad had nots at i s fac t or i l yans w er ed th e se a n d o th e r q u e stio n s, th e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. A m jad w a s “ to tallylac k in g in k n o w led g e a b o u t th e M e th o d ist C h u rc h ,” A p p . at 3 5 , an d th a t w h e n “ o n e h o ld s h im se lf o u t as a p a sto r, a le a d e r, a s c h o lar o f a p a rticu lar re lig io n , o n e w o u ld e x p e c t th is i ndi vi dual t o have a tl eas ta mi ni m um amount of know l edge a boutthe r el i gi on w hi ch they [s i c] pr ofes s t o adher e t o, and i n t hi s cas e the r es pondent ’ s l ack of know l edge a boutt he chur ch ce r t ai nl yi s a r efl ect i on on hi s cr edi bi l i ty . ” A pp. at37. T he I J poi nt ed t o m anyot herdi s cr epanc i es i n the A m j ads ’ t es t i m onyt o s uppor ther adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. She not ed thatM r . A m j ad has a M us l i m name and t hat i f he w er e born and bapt i zed a C hr i s t i an i tw oul d be “hi ghl yunl i kel y ” thata C hr i s t i an f a m ilyw o u ld g iv e th e ir c h ild a M u slim n a m e . A p p . at 3 5 . S h e a lso p o in ted o u t th a t, w hen ques t i oned, M r . A m j ad’ s know l edge of

the K or an w as gr eat erthan hi s know l edge o f C h ristia n ity , lea d in g h e r to d o u b t w h e th e r h e w a s e v e n a C h ristia n in P a k ista n a n d to s us pectthathi s know l edge of C hr i s t i ani tym ayhave c om e fr om att endi ng chur ch i n the U n ite d S ta te s .6

T he I J al s o di s count ed the t es t i m onyof w i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed on beha l f of the A m j ads . T he w i tnes s es w ho t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng w er e the A m j ads ’ br other - i n- l aw and a re v ere n d fro m the c h u rch the A m jads w ere att en d ing in the U n it ed S tat es. T h e IJ co n clud ed that thes e w itn esse s w ere test ify ing o n lyab o u t w h at th eyw ere told b yM r. A m jad b e c a u se th e yc o u ld n o t p ro v id e in d e p e n d e n t co rro b o ra tio n o f th e e v e n ts in P ak ist an . (A p p . 4 1 -42 ) F u rth erm o re, th e IJ g av e li tt le w eigh t t o let ters pre sen ted b yM r. A m j ad, pu rport edlyfrom a M et ho dis tm i nis t er i n P akis t an, st at i ng that M r. A m j ad w as a p a sto r. T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t th e lette rs w e re “ q u e stio n a b le” c o n sid e rin g th e ir gr amm at i cal and s pel l i ng err or s and thattheyw er e “s el f s ervi ng” atthe veryl eas t . A pp. at36. O n a p p e a l, th e B IA a f f irm e d . T h e B IA n o ted th a t th e A m jad s w e re u n a b le to re sp o n d to b a sic q u e stio n s a b o u t th e M e th o d ist f a ith , an d c o n c lu d e d : T he r es pondent s ’ cl ai m foras y l um i s pr edi cat ed upon thei rC hr i s t i an r el i gi ous b eli ef s, as su ch , the a b sen ce o f k n o w ledg e re g ard ing tho se b eli ef s g o es to the v ery heartof thei rcl ai m and s uppor t s the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s det erm i nat i on. C o n se q u e n tly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re sp o n d e n ts h a v e f a iled to p ro v id e a p lau sib le a n d c o h e re n t a c c o u n t o f th e b a s is o f

th e irf e a r. A p p . a t 7 . T he A m j ads t i m el yfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i th thi s courtand moved fora s t ay of r emoval pendi ng r evi ew , w hi ch w e gr ant ed on D ece m ber1, 2004. II. T o qual i fyas a “r efuge e” w ho m ayr ece i ve as y l um , an al i en mustes t abl i s h that7

s /he i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s orhercountryof nat i onal i ty“bec aus e of p e r s e c u t i o n o ra w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l 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. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he per s ecut i on al l eged mustbe atthe hands of “the governm entorfor ces the governm enti s ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . ” G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d . C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um on the bas i s of pas tper s ecut i on, an appl i cant m us ts how : ( 1) an i nci dent( ori nci dent s ) thatcons t i tut ed per s ecut i on; ( 2) thatoccurr ed on acc ountof one of

the s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ounds ; and ( 3) thatw as ( orw er e) comm i t t ed b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f

o rc e s th e 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. B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he B I A and thi s courthave in terp re ted “ p e rse c u tio n ” to in c lu d e c o n d u c t o r c o n d iti o n s “ so se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a t hreatt o li fe or freedom . ” F at i n v . IN S , 12 F . 3d 12 33 , 12 40 (3d C i r. 19 93 ). T hu s,

“ p e rse c u tio n d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll tre a tm e n t th a t o u r so c ietyre g a rd s a s u n f a ir, u n ju st, oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. at1240. W hetheran appl i canthas demonstr at ed “pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on” on ac countof a s t atut or i l yenumer at ed fa ct ori s a fa ctual det erm i nat i on, w h ich th is c o u rt re v iew s u n d e r th e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd . S h a rd a r v . A sh c ro f t, 382 F. 3d 318, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U nderthi s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al s t andar d, the I J ’ s fi ndi ng m u s tb e u p h e l d u n l e s s “ th e e v i d e n c e n o to n l y su p p o rts ” a c ontr aryconcl us i on, “but8

c o m p e ls i t . ” El i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. at481 n. 1. T hus , the I J ’ s det erm i nat i ons w i l l be uphel d t o the ext entthattheyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve ev iden ce o n the re co rd c o n side red as a w h o le. ” Id . at 48 1 (cit ati o n o m itted). T he A m j ads cont end thatthe I J vi ol at ed due pr oces s byfai l i ng t o cons i der o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e o f

M r. A m jad ’s s tatu s a s a p a sto r in h e r f in d in g th is a sp e c t o f

h is t es t i m onyi ncr edi bl e. T he evi dence pr es ent ed bythe A m j ads thattheycl ai m the I J fai l ed to c o n sid e r in c lu d e s: p h o to g ra p h s p u rp o rtin g to sh o w M r. A m jad in a lea d e rsh ip ro le d u ri n g a C h ri sti an ce rem o n y ; m arriage an d b irth ce rt ifi ca tes i n d icati n g the A m jads are C hri st i an; pass po rt s w hich l i sttheirrel i gion as C hri st i an an d M r. A m j ad’s occup at i on as a pas t or ; and l ett er s i ndi cat i ng thatM r . A m j ad i s a pas t orand document i ng hi s s truggl es w i th M us l i m s . T heyas s ertthatthe I J fai l ed t o cons i derthi s evi dence beca us e i tw as not m ent i oned i n heropi ni on. I n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , the I J “s hal l cons i derevi dence s ubm i t t ed bythe appl i cant t ogetherw i th hi s orheras y l um appl i cat i on, as w el l as anyevi dence s ubm i t t ed bythe appl i cantbefor e oratthe i nt ervi ew . ” 8 C . F. R . § 208. 9( e) . H ow ever , w e have s t at ed that the I J does nothave t o comm enton everypi ece of evi dence i n the r ecor d. L i u v. A s hcr oft , 372 F. 3d 529, 531 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; s ee a l s o, C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng thatevi dence i n the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e w as s ubs t ant i al en o u g h to su p p o rtad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination ). T he I J focus ed on one pr i m aryi ncons i s t encyi n the A m j ads ’ t es t i m onyw hen9

fi ndi ng them not cr edi bl e. She ques t i oned M r . A m j ad on the funda m ent al as pect s of C hri st i anityand the M et ho dis tC hu rch and con cl ud ed thathis i nab i l i tyt o respon d to these q u e s tio n s s e ri o u s ly u n d e rm in e d h is c re d ib ility g iv e n th a t h e w a s a lle g in g to b e a p a s to r. S h e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e d th a t th e A m jad s’ k n o w led g e o f

th e B ib le w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith thei rt es t i m onythattheyt aughtB i bl e s tudi es i n Paki s t an. T h e G o v ern m en t argu es th at th e inc o n sist en cies relied u p o n b ythe B IA an d the IJ a re n o t m in o r, b u t in s te a d th e yg o to th e “ h e a rt o f th e A m ja d s ’ a s y lu m c la im s .” R es pondent ’ s B r . at22. T he A m j ads r es pond thatthe I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e the I J ’ s r eas oni ng i s bas ed upon herques t i ons a b o u t C h ri s tia n ity a n d th e re c o rd c o n ta in s n o in f o rm a tio n a b o u t C h ri s tia n d o c tr in e . R atherthan dec i de thi s cas e on the A m j ads ’ know l edge of

C hr i s t i ani tyi n gener al a n d th e f u n d a m e n tals o f

M e th o d ist re lig io n , w e tu rn to a m o re strik in g d e f icie n c yin th e ir cas e – the l ack of

evi dence thatthe Paki s t ani governm entw as r es pons i bl e forthe in c id e n ts o n w h ich th e yb a se th e ir c laim o f p e rse c u tio n . W e re p e a t th a t p o rtio n o f th e ir b rie f v e rb a tim : (1 ) re c u rrin g in c id e n ts in w h ich [ M r. A m jad ] w a s id e n tifie d a n d w a rn e d to s t op hi s pas t or al w or k; ( 2) thr eat s byM us l i m fana t i cs t o burn the chur ch and s chool w hen he w or ked atSt . D om i ni c s chool i n 1995; ( 3) beat i ng of Fr . J avai d atSt . D om i ni c’ s i n 1995; ( 4) att acks , i ns ul t s , thr eat s dur i ng ful l - t i m e pas t or al w or k fr om 1996- 2000, byM us l i m fana t i cs w ho w ant ed M r . R afi q t o s t op hi s pas t or al w or k;10 ( 5) i n A ugus t1997, a vi l l age may orof s or t s i n one of the t ow n’ s he vi s i t ed w i th s om e counc i l m en and us ed a tr act ort o knock overa chur ch thatone of h is c o n g re g a tio n s w a s b u ild in g ; ( 6) I n one of the t ow ns , M r . R afi q had t o end hi s pas t or al w or k, beca us e the M u slim s w h o o w n e d m o st o f th e b u sin e ss e s w h e re th e C h ristia n s w o rk to ld the C hri st i ans t hat theyw ou l d b e fi red i f t heyw ent t o the C hri st i an servi ces; (7 ) O n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 , at th e c h u rc h in L a h o re , the re w a s a sc u f f le a t a chur ch party , beca us e s om e l ocal M us l i m m en bega n t o fi ghtw i th s om e of th e c h u r c h g o e r s w h o w e r e h a v i n g a C h r i s t m a s p a r ty; ( 8) O n D ece m ber22, 2000, r ape c har ges w er e fa br i cat ed aga i ns tone of the boy s w ho att ended the chur ch ( and w ho w as a s i ngeratthe D ece m ber20 th p a r ty ) . He wa s h e l d i n j a i l f o rtwo we e k s , d u r i n g wh i c h h e wa s b e a t e n . No char ges w er e fi l ed; ( 9) I n A pr i l 2001, M r . R afi q and M s . A m j ad s t art ed a s ew i ng s chool that in c lu d e d a m ix o f

C h ristia n a n d M u slim stu d e n ts. T w o o f th e M u slim stud en ts co m p lai n ed that theyh ea rd B ible v erse s an d that M u sli m s w ere b eing taug h t abo u t C h ri sti an ity . T h e g ir ls’ p are n ts t o ld the R af iqs the yw ere c o m m i t t i n g B l a s p h e m y; ( 1 0 ) Al s o i n Ap r i l , a M u s l i m b o ys t a l k e d M s . Amj a d a n d th r e a t e n e d t o h a r m M r. [A m jad]; ( 11) I n A pr i l and M ay2001, the thr eat s es cal at ed and c ul m i nat ed i n a M u slim m o b sc re a m in g a n d f o rc in g th e m to c lo se sc h o o l. P eti ti o n ers’ B ri ef

at 7-8 (cit ati o n s o m itted). In re sp o n se to this co u rt ’s req u est th at th e p arti es p o int t o ev iden ce in the rec o rd thataddr es s es w hetherpas tper s ecut i on s etfor th on pages 7 and 8 of Pet i t i oner s ’ B r i ef
w a s c o m m itt e d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t o f P a k ista n o r f

o rc e s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t eith e r is unw i l l i ng orunabl e t o contr ol , couns el forthe Pet i t i oner s r es ponded that“the G o v e rn m e n t o f

P a k ista n is a c q u ies c e n t an d is in c e rta in w a y s a n a c tiv e p a rticip a n t in11

v io len c e a g a in st C h ristia n s;” “ v io len c e a g a in st C h ristia n s is c o m m o n p lac e in P a k ista n ;” G o v ern m en t of

ficials are im p li ca ted in three o f th e li sted incid en ts; an d the C o u n try C ondi t i ons s uppor tM r . A m j ad’ s t es t i m onyaboutthe “f eckl es s nes s of not i fy i ng the pol i ce aboutthe vi ol ence and thr eat s perpetr at ed byM us l i m s agai ns thi m orhi s w i fe. ” P eti ti o n ers’ R esp o n se to the C o u rt ’s S u p p lem en taryR eq u est at 1-2 (O ctob er 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ). W e ar e notper s uaded. A s i t s r es pons e t o t hi s court ’ s i nqui ry , the G overnm entnot es thatnei therof the Pet i t i oner s t es t i fi ed ors ugges t ed thattheys oughtpr ot ect i on of the G overnm entorthat s uch pr ot ect i on w as notaff or ded them w hen i tw as s ought . A l though the G overnm ent re p o rts re c o g n ize th a t th e re w e re in sta n c e s in w h ich th e P a k ista n i G o v e rn m e n t f a iled to i nt ervene i n cas es of s oci et al vi ol ence di r ect ed atm i nor i tyr el i gi ous gr oups , the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e R eport s i ncl uded i n the A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d s t at es thatt he Paki s t ani G overnm entdoes notencour age s ect ar i an vi ol ence . O f m os ts i gni fi canc e i n the G o v e rn m e n t’s re sp o n se is th e sta tem e n t th a t “n o n e o f th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted d ire c tly r el at i ng t o t he A m

j ads ’ exper i ence s i n Paki s t an compel s the conc l us i on thatthe A m j ads h a v e b e e n , o r w ill b e , su b jec ted to p e rse c u tio n b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, or b yp riv a te ind ividu als w h ich th e g o v ern m en t i s ‘un ab le t o u n w il li n g ’ t o co n tr o l. ” R esp o n d en t’ s R esp o n se to the C o u rt ’s S u p p lem en taryR eq u est at 3 (O ctob er 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). A s w e n o ted e arli er, th e p ast p erse cu ti o n that w il l sup p o rta p resu m p ti o n o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n is p e rse c u tio n a t th e h a n d s o f th e g o v e rn m e n t o r f

o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is12

ei therunabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol . T he evi dence i n thi s r ecor d does nots uppor tthe A m j ads ’ as s ert i on thattheyhave s at i s fi ed thi s r equi r ement . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l deny th e P e t i t i o n f

o rRe v i e w.13



### A m j adv . A tto rn ey

G en eral o f

th e Un itedS tates, Nos . 04- 3709, 04- 4647 THOMPSON, Di s tri c t

Judge , Conc urri ng. In addit i on t o the ar gu m ents add res sed i n the m aj ori tyop i nion, P et i t i on ers al so a rg u e d th a t th e tra n sla to r e m p lo y e d a t th e ir a sy lu m h e a rin g w a s n o t f a m ili a r w ith C h ri s tia n te rm in o lo g ya n d th e re f o re in te rp re te d w o rd s re la tin g to C h ri s tia n ity p o o rl y(e .g ., tr ans l at i ng “G enes i s ” as “the book of bi r th”) . T he B I A deni ed Pet i t i oner s ’ r eques tforan evident i aryheari ng , st at i ng that i tw ou l d n ot consi der the tr ansl at i on i ssue becau se c o u n s e l f o r P e titio n e rs h a d f

a ile d to o b

je c t to th e p o o r t ra n s la tio n a t th e a s y lu m h e a ri n g . T h e B IA h a s n o t re sp o n d e d to P e tit io n e rs’ su b se q u e n t re q u e sts f o r a c c e ss to th e a u d io r ecor di ng of the hea r i ng. T he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d r equi r es a r evi ew i ng courtt o aff or d gr eat defe r ence t o an I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons beca us e the I J i s bes tpos i t i oned t o obs erve and as s es s an as y l um appl i cant ’ s t es t i m onyand demeanor . See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 2 2 8 , 2 5 2 n . 2 3 (3d . C ir2 0 0 3 ). T h at st an d ard is straine d , h o w ev er, w h ere the IJ’s e v a lu a tio n is b a s e d o n a p o te n tia lly in a c c u ra te tr a n s la tio n o f th e a p p lic a n t’ s te s tim o n y . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on bas ed on pot ent i al l yi nacc ur at e i nform at i on s t emm i ng fr om poortr ans l at i on i s har dl ym or e r el i abl e than one ba s ed on s pecul at i on or conj ectur e. See D i a, 353 F. 3d at249. A t t orney s r epr es ent i ng as y l um appl i cant s cannotr eas onabl ybe r equi r ed t o s peakth e v a rio u s la n g u a g e s o f th e ir c lien ts a n d c a n n o t b e e x p e c ted to k n o w w h e th e r o r n o t a tr ans l at i on i s obj ect i onabl e w i thoutfur theri nves t i gat i on aft erthe hea r i ng. I w oul d fi nd thatthe B I A w as unr eas onabl e t o r equi r e Pet i t i oner s ’ couns el t o obj ectt o the tr ans l at i on p ro b lem s d u rin g th e a sy lu m h e a rin g a n d sh o u ld h a v e g iv e n P e tit io n e rs a c c e ss to th e a u d io t apes of the hea r i ng. N onethel es s , I agr ee w i th the maj or i tythatPet i t i oner s have not show n thatthe g ov ernm ent of P akis t an w as r espon si ble for anyof the i ncident s of pa st p e rse c u tio n . T h e re f

o re , I co n c u r in th e re su lt.