# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 11 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Fal lo u N’Diaye

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 19
Fi le d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

In 20 05

, Pe t i t i o n e r Fal lo u N’ Diaye was pl aced in rem ov al pr oc eed in gs fo r

ov ers ta y in g hi s vi sa

. He ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d pr ot ect io n

W il li am P. Barr ha s be en ap po in te d to se rv e as Att or ne y Gen eral of th e Uni te d 1

St at es , an d is su bs ti tu te d as res po nd en t p u rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te
Pro ced ur e 4 3( c).un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e (“ CAT”). An im m ig rat io n ju dg e de ni ed hi s

a p p l i c a t io n, fin di ng th at he ha d no t m et hi s bu rd en of pr oo f on th e m eri ts an d

or de rin g hi m rem ov ed

. The BIA affi rm ed

. The reaf te r, N’ Diaye fil ed a m o t i o n to

r e o p e n wit h th e BIA be cau se he ha d m arri ed a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen aft er th e

im m ig rat io n jud ge i s s u e d t h e rem ov al or de r. The BIA gr an te d th e m ot io n, an d

N’ Diaye was p la ced in an ot he r ro un d o f rem ov al pro ceed in gs

.

In th e se co nd ro un d of rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , a se co nd im m i g r a t i o n jud ge

or de red N’ Diaye rem ov ed . The s eco nd im m ig rat io n ju dg e co nc lu de d th at N’ Diaye

was i n el ig ib le to ad

jus t hi s st at us be cau se he ha d pr ev io us ly pr ov id ed m at eri al

su pp or t to a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n. The BIA ul ti m at el y affi rm ed on th e sa m e gr ou nd s.

N’ Diaye fil ed a pe ti ti on for rev ie w of t he BIA’s de ci si on wit h th is Co ur t. W e de ny

th e p et it io n.

I. Back gr ou nd

A. The Fi rs t Ro un d o f Pro ceed in gs

N’ Diaye is or ig in al ly fro m Tin do dy, Sen eg al

. He was le ga ll y ad m it te d to th e

U n i t e d S ta te s in Sep te m

be r 20 03 as a no n- im m ig ran t vi si to r wit h au th or iz at io n t o

rem ai n in th e co un try fo r no m or e th an si x m on th s. He ov ers ta y ed hi s vi sa

. In 20 05

, he was p la ced in rem ov al pro ceed in gs

.

N’ Diaye ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d CAT pr ot ect io n. In

Octo be r 20 08

, th e im m ig rat io n jud ge he ld a he ari ng on hi s ap pl ic at io n. Rel ev an t to

th is ap pe al

, N’ Diaye sa id th at he ha d be en rai se d in Sen eg al fo r m os t of hi s ch il dh oo d

y ears

. His m ot he r was de ad

, bu t hi s fat he r was al iv e. The y ha d bo th be en m em be rs

of th e Mo ve m en t of Dem oc rat ic Fo rces of Cas am an ce (“ MFDC ”), se rv in g as

“ rep res en ta ti ve s of th e M F D C i n th e to wn whe re th ey us ed to li ve .” N’ Diaye

ex pl ai ne d th at “ [e]ver y th in g [a pe rs on ] ne ed ed to kn ow ab ou t th e m ov em en t MFDC ”

-2

-co ul d be lear ne d from hi s p aren ts , and “ if [th e pe rs on ] wan te d to be co m e a m em be r

of th e MFDC , th ey

were t he co nt act s.”

N’ Diaye te st ifi ed th at he joi ne d th e MFDC aro un d Sep te mb e r 1 9 98

. He

“ be lo ng [ed ] to

. . . a pa rti cu la r se ct io n of th e M F D C

, ” th e go al of whi ch was “ to

recr ui t ne w m em

be rs .” Acco rd in g to N’ Diaye, th e go al of th e MFDC whe n he joi ne d

was to ach ie ve “ in de pe nd en ce fro m Sen eg al ” fo r th e Cas am an ce reg io n. He

ex pl ai ne d ho w th e MFDC ha d “ st art ed

. . . in th e po li ti cal aren a, tryin g to ge t

in de pe nd en t.” Howev er, be cau se “ th e p r e s i d e n t di dn ’t ke ep up wit h hi s pr om is e,”

m em be rs of t he MFDC “ st art ed us in g fo rce” so m et im e in th e 1 98 0s

.

N’ Diaye ex pl ai ne d th at he ne ve r ad vo cat ed t h e us e of fo rce ag ai ns t th e

go ve rn m en t, no r di d he ev er ta ke an y act io n to ha rm an ot he r pe rs on in fu rth eran ce of

th e MFDC ’s go al s. Howev er, on cro ss -ex am in at io n, he ex pl ai ne d th at whe n he
joi ne d t h e M F DC, he was aware th at it was “ an arm ed se pa rat is t m ov em en t” th at

f o u g h t w i th th e Sen eg al es e go ve rn m en t. He cl ai m ed th at th e MFDC on ly fo ug h t

so ld ie rs ; it di d no t ki ll Sen eg al es e ci vi li a ns

. Rep or ts to th e co nt rary, he ex pl ai ne d,

were fab ric at ed by th e Sen eg a l e s e go ve rn m en t to m ak e th e MFDC lo ok ba d.

Nev ert he le ss , N’ Diaye kn ew whe n he joi ne d th e MFDC th at i t s memb ers ha d

weap on s an d u se d t he m

ag ai ns t Se ne ga le se so ld ie rs

.

N’ Dia ye d i d much to su pp or t th e MFDC

. He cl ai m ed th at he he lp ed recr ui t

ap pr ox im at el y 50 pe op le to th e M F D C b y “t e l l [in g] t he m ab ou t th e

. . . m ov em en t,

he lp [in g] th em fin an ce wis e an d gi v[ in g]th em th e in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e MFDC .” He

ex pl ai ne d th at he ha d bee n g iv in g m on ey to th e MFDC on a m on th ly bas is si nc e he

en te red th e Uni te d St at es in 20 03

. He al so se nt cl ot he s an d ot he r su pp li es to le ad ers

of th e MFDC

. He es ti m at ed th at he ha d gi ve n ap pr ox im at el y $7 0 0 or $8 00 of hi s

own m on ey

to th e MFDC

.

-3

-N’ Diaye’ s te st im on y cau se d th e go ve rn m en t to arg ue at cl os in g th at he sh ou ld

be st at ut or il y ba rred f

r o m r ecei vi ng rel ie f be cau se he ha d m at eri al ly su pp or te d a

te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n. See 8 U.S.C. 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( iv )(VI) (ren de rin g an a l i e n who

ha s “ co m m it [te d] an act th at th e act or kn ows , or reas on ab ly sh o ul d kn ow, affo rd s

m at eri al su pp or t” to a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n in ad m is si bl e). In th e in te res t of fai rn es s,

th e im m ig rat io n jud ge co nt in ue d th e he ari ng to al lo w N’ Diaye t o r e s po nd to th e

go ve rn m en t’s ne wly rai se d arg um en t. The pa rti es su bm it te d su pp l e m en ta l

do cu m en ta ti on ab ou t th e MFDC

, an d th e go ve r n men t s u b m it te d a br ie f arg ui ng in

fav or of a pp lying th e b ar. The im m ig rat io n ju dg e th en he ld a fi na l m eri ts he ari ng

.

At th e fin al he ari ng , N’ Diaye te st ifi ed ab ou t th e st ru ct u re of th e MFDC

. He

ex pl ai ne d th at th e MFDC is co m pr is ed of two fact io ns : (1 ) th e arm ed reb e l s w h o

fo ug ht wit h th e go ve rn m en t and (2 ) th e “ ot he r win gs ,” le d by “ Abb e Dia m aco un e,”

th at ne go ti at ed wit h t he go ve rn m en t i n a pe acef ul way . N’ Diaye lat er cl ari fie d t ha t

Abb e was a ti tl e th at m e an t pr ie st ; Diam aco un e’s fir st na m e was real ly Aug us ti n.

N’ Diaye st at ed th at bo th fact io ns ha d th ei r own ch ie f an d th at m em be rs of d iff

eren t

et hn ic ba ck gr ou nd s m ad e up th e di ffer en t fact io ns

— th e pe acef ul fact io n was

pr ed om in an tl y co mp o s e d of pe op le fro m hi s an d on e ot he r ba ck gr ou nd

, whe reas

pe op le fro m a va rie ty of et hn ic gr ou ps who sp ok e di ffer en t di al ect s m ad e up th e reb el

fact io n. Cri ti cal ly, ho wev er, on cro ss -ex am in at io n, N’ Diaye sa id th at de sp it e ha vi ng

“ the ir own le ad er[s ], ” th e two fact io ns were “ th e sa m e or ga ni zat io n.” N’ Diaye fu rth er

te s t i f i e d th at he ne ve r po ss es se d or us ed a weap on whi le he was a m em be r of th e

MFDC

, no r di d he ev er ha ve co nt act wit h or as so ci a t e wit h th e reb el fact io n. The

im m ig rat io n jud ge he ard cl os in g arg um en ts on th e m at te r an d p e rm it te d th e pa rti es

to su bm it fur th er b rie fin g o ne m or e ti m e b efo re s he ren de red he r de ci si on

.

The im m ig rat io n jud ge or al ly an no un ced he r de ci si on to de ny N’ Diaye’ s

ap pl ic a t i o n f

o r rel ie f on Sep te m

be r 29

, 20 09

. Reg ard in g as y lu m , th e im m ig rat io n jud ge sa id th at N’D i a ye f ai le d to of

fer ev id en ce of ex tra or di na ry or ch an ge d

ci rcu m st an ces to ex cu se hi s fai lu re to fil e an ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m wit hi n on e y ear

-4

-of hi s a r r i v a l d a te ; th eref or e, sh e de cl in ed to tre at it as an as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. Sh e

c o n c l u d ed th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d m et it s bu rd en of sh owi ng th at th e m at eri al

su pp or t ba r “ m ay ap pl y .” See 8 C.F.R. § 12 40 .8(d ). H o w e v e r , s h e al so co nc lu de d

th at N ’D i a ye m et hi s bu rd en of “ pr ov in g th at th e te rro ris m ba r d[ id ] no t ap pl y ”

be cau se N’ Diaye’ s te st im on y an d do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce es ta bl is he d th at th e MFDC

was m ad e up of two fact io ns an d N’ Diaye on ly su pp or te d th e pe acef ul fact io n. Sh e

fo un d th at N’ Diaye’ s te st im on y reg ard in g hi s fear of ret ur ni ng to Se n e g a l w a s no t

cred ib le

. Sh e al so fo un d th at hi s ot he r ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl i s h a
cred ib le fear of ret ur ni ng

. Sh e th us d e t e r mi n e d th at N’ Diaye was in el ig ib le fo r
wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al an d CAT rel ie f. Bo th N’ Diaye an d th e go ve rn m en t ap pe al ed

.

The BIA affi rm ed th e im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s d eci si on in A p r i l 20 12

. The BIA

he l d t h a t th ere was “ no cl ear erro r in [th e] Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y

as se ss m en t” or h er fa ct ua l fi nd in gs

. Mo reo ve r, th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e rec or d

si m pl y d[ id ] no t co nt ai n en ou gh cred ib le ev id en ce fo r [N’Diay e] to m eet hi s bu rd en

of pr oo f fo r wit hh ol di ng o f rem ov al ” an d CAT pr ot ect io n. The BIA de cl in ed to

ad dr es s t he go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t re ga rd in g t he m at eri al -s up po rt b ar.

B. The S eco nd Ro un d o f Pro ceed in gs

The BIA reo pe ne d N’ Diaye’ s cas e in Sep te m be r 20 12 be cau se he ha d m arri ed

a U.S. ci ti zen du rin g th e pe nd en cy of hi s ap pe al to th e BIA an d hi s wife ha d fil ed an

al ie n- rel at iv e vi sa pe ti ti on on hi s be ha lf. The BIA co nc lu de d N’ Diaye ha d su bm it te d

ne w ev id en ce tha t “ wou ld li ke ly chan ge th e res ul t in th e cas e.” The BIA, ho wev er,
di d no t ad dr es s th e go ve r n men t’s arg um en t reg ard in g th e m at eri al -s up po rt ba r.

In st ead

, th e BIA rem an de d th e cas e to th e i mm ig rat io n jud ge “ fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs .”

N’ Diaye ha d hi s cas e tra ns ferr ed to a se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge in Kan sa s Ci ty,

Mi ss ou ri, an d ap pl ie d to ad jus t hi s s t a t u s

. At a m eri ts he ari ng be fo re th e se co nd

-5

-im m ig rat io n jud ge , N’ Diaye an d hi s wife te st ifi ed ab ou t th ei r m arri ag e, an d N’ Diaye

te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s i n v ol ve m en t wit h th e MFDC

. He cl ai m ed th at whe n he was a

m em be r of th e MFDC

, he wou ld “ at te nd m eet in gs ” an d “ go d o o r t o d oo r wit h th e

ne ig hb or s, t ry [in g] to in fo rm th em an d ha ve th em joi n th e m ov em en t.” Hi s ac ti on s

were so le ly li m it ed to recr ui ti ng ot he rs

. He ex pl ai ne d th at th e MFDC “ was a no nvi ol en t or ga ni zat io n” bu t th at “ th ere wer e o th er o rg an iz at io ns at th at ti m e, m ul ti pl e

or ga ni zat io ns th at were fig ht in g fo r in de pe nd en ce, bu t in a vi ol en t way .” He di d no t

kn ow m uc h ab ou t th os e gr ou ps be c a u s e h e h a d “ ne ve r be en [a] m em be r of th os e

gr ou ps .” He st at ed th a t th e vi ol en t gr ou ps were “ se pa rat e an d di ffer en t fro m [th e]

MFDC ,” wit h “ th ei r own lea de rs ” an d “ th ei r own ag en da .”

O n cr oss -e xa m ina ti on , th e go ve rn m en t qu estio ne d N ’ D ia y e ab out his te sti m ony
be fo re th e fir st im m ig rat io n jud ge

. N’ Di a ye c o n t rad ic te d th at earl ie r te st im on y ,
st at in g th at th e MFDC was no t an arm ed se pa rat is t m ov em en t. In a co nf us in g m an ne r
he ex pl ai ne d th at , t o hi s kn owl ed ge , t he po li ti cal win g a nd th e m or e m il it an t win gs

of th e MFDC were “ no t in vo lv ed .” The re were “ se ve ral g r o u p s th at wou ld en ga ge

in ” ph y si cal fig ht in g, bu t h i s “wa s a no n- vi ol en t gr ou p.” It “ wou ld no t en ga ge in
fig ht [s ], ” jus t “ po li ti cal ne go ti at io ns .” W he n as ke d why he ha d earl ie r st at ed th at hi s

or ga ni zat io n ha d weap on s an d fo ug ht ag ai ns t go ve rn m en t so ld ie rs , N’ D i ay e

sugg es te d tha t the co ur

t- ap poi nte d in te rp ret er m ay no t ha ve accu rat el y tra ns la te d wha t

he sa i d a t earl ie r pr oc eed in gs

. The se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge he ard cl os in g

arg um en ts an d t oo k t he m at te r un de r ad vi se m en t.

In Octo be r 20 14

, th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge is su ed a writ te n de ci si on

. He

he ld th at th e m at eri al -s up po rt ba r ap pl ie d an d de ni ed N’ Diaye’ s ad jus tm en t-o f-s ta tu s

ap pl ic at io n. The se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge ex pl ai ne d th at th e do cu m en ts bo th pa rti es

su bm it te d es ta bl is he d th at th e MFDC

, ev en th e pe acef ul win g N’ Diaye cl ai m ed he

be lo ng ed to

, e ng ag ed in va rio us act s of vi ol en ce th at qu al ifi ed it as a te rro ris t

or ga ni zat io n u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( vi )(III ) (“ Tier III” ). The se co nd

-6

-im m ig rat io n jud ge co nc lu de d th at N’ Diaye’ s pr ov is io n of “ ne arl y $1 ,00 0.0 0” to th e

M F D C an d hi s recr ui tm en t of “ ap pr ox im at el y 50 pe op le ” fo r th e or ga ni zat io n

co ns ti tu te d m at eri al su pp or t. The se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge cred it ed N’ Diaye’ s

te st im on y reg ard in g hi s m em be r s h i p i n , an d su pp or t of

, th e MFDC be cau se it ha d

be en co ns is te nt wit h th e te st im on y N’ Diaye ha d gi ve n to th e fir st im m ig rat io n jud ge

. Howev er, th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge fo un d th at N’ Diaye’ s “ te st im on y reg ard in g

hi s kn owl ed ge of th e act iv it ie s of th e MFDC was no t cred ib le .” (Em ph as is om it te d)

. Th e s e c o nd im m ig rat io n jud ge th us co nc lu de d th at N’ Diaye co ul d no t carr y hi s
bu rd en of sh owi ng “ by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at he di d no t kn ow, an d

sh ou ld no t reas on ab ly ha ve kn own , th at th e [MF DC] w a s a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n.”

The sec on d i m

m ig rat io n ju dg e o rd ered N’ Diaye rem ov ed

.

The BIA ul ti m at el y af

fi rm ed the se co nd im

m igr at ion jud ge ’s de ci si on

. The BIA

co nc lu de d th at th ere was no le ga l im pe di m en t ba rri ng th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge

fro m reex am in in g th e is s u e o f whe th er th e m at eri al -s up po rt ba r ap pl ie d. The BIA

ag reed wit h th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s ho ld in g th a t t h e M FDC is a Tier -III

te rro ris t o rg an iz at io n. Th e BIA ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e st at ut or y de fin it io n o f ‘terro ris t

or ga n i z a t i o n ’ is br oa d” an d st at ed th at ev en “ a su bg ro up en ga gi ng in te rro ris t

act iv it ie s ren de rs th e who le gr ou p a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n.” The BIA al so ag reed wit h

th e se co nd im m ig rat io n ju d g e ’s co nc lu si on th at N’ Diaye di d no t es ta bl is h by cl ear

an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at he di d no t kn ow an d sh ou ld no t reas on ab ly ha ve kn own

th at th e MFDC was a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n. The BIA co nc lu de d th at th e se co nd

im m ig rat io n jud ge di d no t cl earl y err in m ak in g hi s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n. The

BIA ci te d N’ Diaye’ s co nf li ct i n g t e s t im on y an d po in te d ou t th at “ th e do cu m en ta ry

ev id en ce do es no t de m on st rat e th at th e po li ti cal win g of th e MFDC is se pa rat e an d

di st in ct fro m th e m il it an t win g.” N’ Diaye ti m el y pe ti ti on ed th is Co ur t to rev ie w an d

rev ers e th e BIA’s d eci si on

.

-7

-II. Dis cu ss io n

A. Stan da rd of R ev ie w and Sta tu to ry Back gr ou nd

W he n rev ie win g a de ci s i o n fro m th e BIA, “ [w]e rev ie w th e BIA’s le ga l

de te rm in at io ns de no vo , bu t we acco rd ‘sub st an ti a l d e fere nc e to th e BIA’s

in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut es an d reg ul at io ns it ad m in is te rs .’ ” God frey v. Ly nc h, 81 1

F.3 d 10 13

, 10 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Sp acek v. Ho ld er, 6 88 F.3d 53 6, 5 38 (8t h

Ci r. 20 12 )). W e ov ert ur n th e BIA’s fin di ng s of fact on ly whe n “ th ey are un su pp or te d
by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id

. A fact ua l fin di ng is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce whe n we, aft er rev ie win g th e reco rd as a who le

, “ de te rm in e th at it wou ld no t

be po ss ib le fo r a reas on ab le fa c t

- f i nd er to ad op t th e BIA’s po si ti on .” Ju arez

Co ro na do v. Barr

, 91 9 F.3 d 10 85

, 10 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (q uo ti ng Eus eb io v. Ash cro ft,

36 1 F.3 d 10 88

, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). W he re, as he re, th e B I A ha s “ ad op te d th e

fin di ng s or th e reas on in g of th e [imm ig rat io n jud ge ], we al so rev ie w th e [imm ig rat io n jud ge ’s] de ci si on as pa rt of th e fin al ag en cy act io n.” God frey, 81 1 F

. 3 d a t 1 01 7
(q uo ti ng Garci a-Go nz al ez v . Hol de r, 73 7 F .3d 49 8, 5 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) ).

Und er th e Im

m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”), a no ni m m ig ran t al ie n

se ek in g to ad

jus t st at us m

us t, am on g ot he r th in gs , be “ ad m is si bl e to th e Uni te d St at es

fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (a). An al ie n i s i n ad m is si bl e if he “ ha s

en ga ge d in a te rro ris t act iv it y .” Id

. § 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( i)( I). The INA de fin es th e te rm

“ en ga ge in ter ro ris t ac ti vi ty” to m ean , am on g o th er t hi ng s:

to co m m it an act th at th e a c t o r kn ows , or reas on ab ly sh ou ld kn ow, affo rd s m at eri al su pp or t, in cl ud in g a sa fe ho us e, tra ns po rta ti on ,
co m m un ic at io ns , fu nd s, tra ns fer of fu nd s or ot he r m at eri al fin an ci al
be ne fit

, fal se do cu m en ta ti on or id en ti fic at io n, weap on s (in cl ud in g ch em ic al , b io lo gi cal , o r rad io lo gi cal weap on s) , e xp l o s i v es , o r tra in in g

. . . (d d) to a [Tie r-III ] te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n

. . . u n l e ss th e act or can de mo n st rat e by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at th e act or di d no t

-8

-kn ow, an d sh ou ld no t reas on ab ly ha ve kn own , th at th e or ga ni zat io n was

a te rro ris t o rg an iz at io n.

Id

. § 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( iv )(VI). A Tier -III te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n is an or ga ni zat io n “ th at

is a gr ou p of two or m or e in di vi du al s, w h et he r or ga ni zed or no t, whi ch en ga ge s in

,

or ha s a su bg ro up whi ch en ga ge s in ” te rro ris t act iv it ie s. Id

. § 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( vi )(III ).

A ter ro ris t ac ti vi ty, in tu rn , is :

an y act iv it y whi ch is un la wfu l un de r th e l a w s of th e pl ace whe re it is

co m m it te d (o r whi ch

, if it ha d b e en co m m it te d in th e Uni te d St at es ,
wou ld be un la wfu l un de r th e la ws of th e Uni te d St at es or an y St at e) an d
whi ch in vo lv es an y

of t he fol lo win g:

(I) The hi gh

jack in g or sa bo ta ge of an y co nv ey an ce (in cl ud in g an ai rcra ft, v es se l, o r ve hi cl e).

(II) The se iz in g or de ta in in g, an d th reat en in g to ki ll

, in jure

, or

co nt in ue to de ta in , a no t he r in di vi du al in or de r to co m pe l a th ird

pe rs on (in cl ud in g a go ve rn m en ta l or ga ni zat io n) to do or a bs ta in
fro m do in g an y act as an ex pl ic it or im pl ic it co nd it io n f

o r t he
rel eas e o f th e in di vi du al sei zed or d et ai ne d.

(III) A vi ol en t at ta ck up on an in te rn at io na ll y pr ot ect ed pe rs on (as
d e f i ne d in se ct io n 11 16 (b )(4 ) of ti tl e 18 ) or up on th e li be rty of

su ch a pe rs on

.

(IV) An ass as si na ti on

.

(V) The us e o f an y

—

(a) bi ol og ic al ag en t, ch em ic al ag en t, or nu cl ear weap on or de vi ce, o r

(b ) ex pl os iv e, fir earm , or ot he r weap on or d a ng ero us de vi ce (o th er t ha n fo r m ere p ers on al m on et ary ga in ),

-9

-wit h in te nt to en da ng er, di rect ly or in di rect ly, th e sa fet y of on e or

m or e in di vi du al s o r to cau se su bs ta nt ia l d am ag e to pro pe rty.

(VI) A th reat , att em

pt , or c on sp ira cy

to do an y of t he for eg oi ng

.

Id

. § 11 82 (a)( 3) (B)( ii i). In rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , th e bu rd en is on th e al ie n to

es ta bl is h th at he is el ig ib le to ad jus t st at us

. See 8 C.F.R. § 12 40 .8(d ). If th e ev id en ce

in di cat es th at th e al ie n m ay ha ve m at eri al ly su pp or te d a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n, he

m us t al so pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e m at eri al -s up po rt ba r to

ad m is si bi li ty doe s n ot ap pl y . See i d.

B. Anal y si s

N’ Diaye es se nt ia ll y arg ue s th at th e MFD C h e su pp or te d was no t a te rro ris t

or ga ni zat io n. Alt ern at iv el y , he arg ue s th a t h e d i d no t kn ow an d sh ou ld no t

reas on ab ly ha ve kn own th e MFDC was a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n whe n he su pp or te d it

. W e h ol d t ha t N’Diay e fai le d t o m eet hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f on bo th is su es

.

The ev id en ce be fo re th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge in di cat ed th at th e m at eri al

su pp or t ba r m ay ha ve ap p l i e d

. N’ Diaye recr ui te d ap pr ox im at el y 50 pe op le fo r th e

or ga ni zat io n an d ga ve it ne arl y $1 ,00 0. Mo reo ve r, do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce su bm it te d
by bo th pa rti es in di cat ed th at th e MFDC was a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n when N’ Diaye

su pp or te d it

. Dur in g th e rel ev an t pe rio ds

, th e MFDC rep or te dl y ki ll ed

, wou nd ed

, an d

m ut i l a te d ci ti zen s, co m

m it te d as sa ss in at io ns , an d en ga ge d in ot he r vi ol en ce us in g

fir earm s an d “ ot he r weap on [s ] or da ng ero us de vi ce[s ]

. . . wit h in te nt to en da ng er

. . . th e sa fet y of on e or m or e in di vi du al s” an d to su bs ta nt ia ll y da m ag e pr op ert y

. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1 18 2( a)(3 )(B) (ii i)( V)(b ). The bu rd en was th us on N’ Diaye to pro ve th e m at eri al

su pp or t b ar d id no t ap pl y

.

-1 0-The BIA co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at N’ Diaye fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en of pr ov in g

th at th e MFDC di d no t q u al ify as a Tier -III te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n at th e ti m e he

su pp or te d it

. At al l rel ev an t ti m es , th e MFDC eas il y fit wit hi n th e st at ut or y de fin it io n

of a Tier -III te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n. It was an or ga ni zed “ gr o u p o f t w o o r m or e

in di vi du al s,” an d it en ga ge d in te rro ris t act iv it ie s. Id

. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) (3 )(B) (v i)( III).
Sp eci fic al ly, do cu m en ts su bm it te d by bo th pa rti es sh ow th at t he MFDC : “ sh el le d

ci vi li an tar ge ts ,” in so m e in st an ces to de te r pe op le fro m vo ti ng in el ect io ns th at th e

MFDC vi ewed as ill eg iti m at e; vi ol en tl y at ta ck ed an d ro bb ed ci vi li an s; ki ll ed ci vi li an s
who were su sp ect ed of be in g g o v e rn m en t su pp or te rs ; pl an te d la nd m in es on pu bl ic

ro ad way s; br ut al iz ed an d rap ed wom en ; s t o l e pr op ert y ; m ut il at ed an d to rtu red

in di vi du al s in at te m

pt s to ga in in fo rm at io n ab out gove rn m en t fo rc es ; an d as sa ss in at ed

at lea st on e g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al

.

N’ Diaye arg ue s th at th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge an d th e BIA erre d in fai li ng

to m ak e a “ pa rti cu la riz ed fact ua l fin di ng ” th at th e m il it an t win g of th e MFDC was a

“ ‘sub gr ou p’ of th e MFDC .” H e arg ue s th at cas e la w fro m th e Thi rd an d Sev en th

Ci rcu it s tre at s th e BIA’s fai lu re to m ak e su ch a fin di ng as rev ers ib le erro r. See Udd in

v. At t o r n e y G en . Un it ed St at es , 8 70 F.3 d 28 2, 29 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 17 ); Kha n v. Hol de r,

7 6 6 F

. 3 d 68 9, 69 9– 70 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e ne ed no t de ci de whe th er to ad op t a
si m il ar ru le

. In th is c as e, N’ Diaye te st ifi ed th at th e gr ou p he su pp or te d was an

“ arm ed se pa rat is t” gr ou p th at us ed weap on s to fig h t a g a i n st go ve rn m en t fo rces

. Nev ert he le ss , N’ Diaye no w arg ue s th at h e b e l o ng ed to an MFDC th at was who ll y

in de pe nd en t fro m th e vi ol en t gr ou ps th at co m m it te d th e at ro ci ti es li st ed ab ov e. Tha t

a r g um en t, ho wev er, is un su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Lik e th e BIA be fo re us , w e
ack no wled ge ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at su gg es ts “ th e MFDC ha [d ] m ul ti pl e fact io ns

th at

. . . va rie d acro ss ge og rap hi c an d i d e o l o g i c a l li ne s.” Howev er, no th in g in th e

reco rd co nv in ces us th at N’ Diaye recr ui te d m em be rs fo r an d ga ve m on ey to a

co m pl et el y pe acef

ul fact io n. To th e co nt rary, N’ Diaye sa id he su pp or te d an “ arm ed

se pa rat is t” gr o u p. He sa id th at hi s gr ou p was le d by Abb e Diam aco un e, who th e

-1 1-do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce rev eal s he lp ed fo un d an d le ad th e m or e vi ol en t So ut he rn Fro nt

of th e MFDC ’s m il i t a n t w i n g in ad di ti on to th e or ga ni zat io n’s po li ti cal win g.

Di a mac ou ne la te r se rv ed as pr es id en t of th e en ti re MFDC

. Giv en th e la ck of

ev id en ce th at N’ Diaye su pp or te d an en ti rel y pe acef ul fact io n of th e MFDC

, co up le d

wit h t he su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to th e co nt rary, we reject N’ Diaye’ s arg um en t th at he

su pp or te d a who ll y

in de pe nd en t, p eace fu l M FDC. 2

The BIA li ke wis e was co rrec t in co nc lu di ng th at N’ Diaye fai le d to mee t hi s
bu rd en of pr ov in g th at he di d no t kn ow or sh ou ld no t ha ve ha d reas on to kn ow th e

MFDC was a te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n whe n he su pp or te d it

. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or ts th e BIA’s fin di ng th at N’ Diaye’ s te st im on y was no t cred ib le as to th is is su e.

Fu rth erm or e, N’ Diaye fail ed to pu t fo rth an y ot he r ev id en ce, le t al on e th e ki nd th at

is cl ear an d co nv in ci ng , to sh ow th at he di d no t kn ow or sh ou ld no t ha ve ha d reas on

to kn ow t ha t t he MFDC e ng ag ed in ter ro ris t ac ti vi ti es

.

Fi na ll y , N’ Diaye es se nt ia ll y arg ue s th at co ll at eral es to pp el an d th e la w-o f-t he

cas e do ct rin e sh ou ld ha ve pr ev en te d th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge fro m

reco ns id eri ng whe th er N’ Diaye m at eri al ly su pp or te d a te rr o r i s t or ga ni zat io n. W e
di sa gr ee. Co ll at eral es to pp el do es no t ap pl y he re be cau se th e is su e was no t

pr ev io us ly de te rm in ed by a va li d and fin al jud gm en t. Rat he r, it “ was de te rm in ed at

an earl ie r st ag e of th e sa m e act io n an d was reco ns id ered pu rs ua nt to th e reo pe ni ng of

th e act io n.” Est rad a-Ro dr i g ue z v. Ly nc h, 82 5 F.3 d 39 7, 40 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(em ph as is om it te d) ; se e al so Ariz on a v. Cali fo rn ia

, 46 0 U.S. 60 5, 61 9 (19 83 ) (“ It is

cl ear th at res jud ic at a an d co ll at eral es to pp el do no t ap pl y i f a p a r t y m ov es th e

W e ack no wled ge , as di d bo th im m ig r at io n jud ge s who he ard hi m , th at 2

N’ Diaye’ s te st im on y su ffer s fro m si gn ifi can t cred ib il it y is su es

. Howev er, in at le as t th e in st an ces jus t ci te d, N’Diay e’s te st im on y co m po rts wit h wh at we ha ve fo un d in

t h e d o cu m en ts

. W e, th eref or e, can no t fau lt th e BIA fo r ta ki ng hi m at hi s wor d i n th es e li m it ed cir cu m st an ces

.

-1 2-ren de rin g co ur t in th e sa m e pr oc eed in g to co rrec t or m od ify it s jud gm en t.”)

. Nor di d

th e se co nd im m ig rat io n jud ge ab us e hi s di sc ret io n by reco ns id eri ng th e is su e. See

Est rad a-Ro dr ig ue z, 82 5 F.3 d at 40 3 (h ol di ng th at an im m ig rat io n jud ge di d no t ab us e
di sc ret io n by reco ns id eri ng an is su e on rem an d) ; se e al so In re Pat el

, 16 I. & N. Dec.

60 0, 60 1 (BIA 19 78 ) (h ol di ng th at un le ss qu al ifi ed or li m it ed fo r a sp eci fic pu rp os e,

a “ rem an d is effe ct iv e fo r th e st at ed pu rp os e an d fo r co ns id erat io n of an y an d al l

m at te rs ” th at th e im m ig rat io n ju dg e d eem s ap pr op ria te ).

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y N’ Diaye’ s p et it io n fo r rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-