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 11-27-2006 

# D i a b ate 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 . 05-4609

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 " Di a b at e v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 157. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/157NOT 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 

### No. 05- 4609 BA KA RYDI AB AT E,

Peti ti on er v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Re s ponde nt P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r of the B oard of

Im m i grat i on A pp eal s (N o . A 9 7 -15 2 -36 5 ) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember7, 2006 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: N ovember27, 2006) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudge B akaryD i abat e, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I voryC oas t , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . T he B I A aff i rm ed w i thoutopi ni on2

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 ”) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on to re v ie w th e B IA ’s o rd e r p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n . I. T he p art i es ar e fam i l i ar w i th the fact s and p roceedings befo re the B IA and the IJ, an d so w e w il l r ev isi t th em o n lyb ri ef ly . P eti ti o n er testi fied that w h il e li v ing in Iv o ry C oas the w as per s ecut ed bec aus e he i s a mem berof the R D R pol i t i cal partyand the D i oul a, orJ ul a, tr i be. Pet i t i oneral l eges thathi s pr obl ems bega n on oraboutD ece m ber29, 2 0 0 0 . In h is b rie f

, h e sta tes th a t h e w a s a rre ste d in th e a f ter n o o n o f

th a t d a yw h ile w or ki ng i n hi s s t or e, aft erw hi ch he w as det ai ned and t or tur ed ata pol i ce s t at i on for appr oxi m at el yone w eek, s uffe r i ng beat i ngs thatl efts car s on hi s fac e. H e al l eges thathe w a s re -a rre ste d o n Ja n u a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , an d th a t h e w a s d e tain e d f o r th re e d a y s a n d a g a in b e a ten . H e f

u rth e r a lleg e s th a t p o lice o f f ice rs m u rd e re d h is f

a th e r o n a c c o u n t o f

h is f a th e r’s R D R m e m b e rsh ip . H e a rg u e s th a t h e w o u ld su f f e r f u rth e r p e rse c u tio n if

f o rc e d to re tu rn to Iv o ry C o a s t. P e t i t i o n e rc a me t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n 2 0 0 2 , l e a v i n g b e h i n d h i s wi f e a n d two chi l dr en, w ho now r es i de i n Senegal . H e ent er ed w i thouti ns pect i on, pos i ng as a s eaman. T he I N S i s s ued hi m a N ot i ce t o A ppearon A ugus t13, 2002, and Pet i t i onerfi l ed for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rC A T on A pr i l 24, 2003. T he I J r ej ect ed hi s cl ai m s , and the B I A aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on.3 II. P e tit io n e r’s a p p e a l b o ils d o w n to a n a rg u m e n t th a t th e IJ e rre d in n o t cr e d iti n g h is acc ountof per s ecut i on. I n t hi s cas e, w her e the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s j udgm entw i thout opi ni on, “w e r evi ew the I J ’ s opi ni on and s crut i ni ze i t s r eas oni ng. ” D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e w il l up h o ld f ac tual d eterm ination s o f th e IJ tha t are s uppor t ed “byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he fi ndi ng thatan a p p lica n t f

o r a sy lu m is n o t cr e d ib le w ill b e a f f o rd e d su b sta n tial d e f

e re n c e if it i s su p p o rt ed b ysp ec ifi c c o g en t r ea so n s. G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). U nderthi s s t andar d, the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w i l l w i ths t and r evi ew unl es s “any re a s o n a b le a d

ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). T he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct , 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( A ) , author i zes the A t t orneyG ener al t o gr antas y l um t o an al i en w ho demonstr at es thathe i s a “r efuge e” w i thi n the meani ng of 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . Sect i on 1101( a) ( 42) defi nes a “r efuge e” a s an al i en w ho i s “unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o . . . [hi s country ] beca us e of pe r s ecut i on 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 . . . . ” W hetheran al i en has es t abl i s hed a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on turns on the “s ubj ect i ve ment al s t at e of the al i en” a nd on the obj ect i ve natur e of hi s r eas ons forfea r i ng per s ecut i on. I N S v. C ar doza-4

Fonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430- 431 ( 1987) . I n contr as tt o w i thhol di ng of r emoval , the r el i ef of as y l um i s di s cr et i onary . I d. at428 n. 1 ( s t at i ng thatthe A t t orneyG ener al m ay , i n hi s or herdi s cr et i on, gr anta r efuge e as y l um ) . T he al i en bea r s the bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum . 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a). III . W i th t hes e l egal pr ece pt s i n m i nd, w e exa m i ne the dec i s i on of the I J i n the ca s e at bar . A l though t he I J di d notexpl i ci t l yfi nd the Pet i t i onernotcr edi bl e, i ti s appar entfr om h is de cisi o n that h e d id n o t cred itcru cial po rt ion s o f P eti ti o n er’s testi m o n y . T h e IJ r ej ect ed Pet i t i oner ’ s acc ountbeca us e of a w eal th of i ncons i s t enci es i n des cr i pt i ons of e v e n ts, a n d b e c a u se P e tit io n e r f a iled to su p p o rt h is c laim s o f p a rtym e m b e rsh ip . W e q u o te lib e ra llyf

ro m th e IJ’ s o p in io n : [ L ]e t u s ta k e a lo o k a t th e in c o n s is te n c ie s a n d th e ya re le g io n . . . . [ R ]e sp o n d e n t h a s s u b m itt e d n o th in g to c o rro b o ra te a n yo f th e a lleg e d a c ts of per s ecut i on agai ns thi s fami l y . T her e i s nothi ng t o s how thathi s father w as ki l l ed. T her e i s nothi ng t o s how fr om anyotheranyw i tnes s es , the w i fe oranybodyel s e, thatther e i s a l i ne of c om m uni cat i on open w i th the mot her oranydocument s fr om I voryC oas tt o s how thatanyof thi s per s ecut i on o c c u rre d . W e h a v e id e n tityd o c u m e n ts, so o b v io u slyh e se e m s to b e a b le to g e t d o c u m e n ts . W e h a v e a v a c c in a tio n c e rt if ic a te , a c o n s u la r c e rt if

ic a te , a vot i ng car d, butw e have nothi ng t o corr obor at e anyof the ac t s of per s ecut i on. N ow thatdoes notnece s s ar i l ym ean thata per s on m us tbe d en ied if th eyd o n o t hav e c o rrob o rati o n , b u t w h en the in co n sist en cies a re s o i ns uffi ci entand s o i ncr edi bl e, then i ti s notunr eas onabl e t o l ook for corr obor at i on.

. . . T h e re sp o n d e n t tes tifie d th a t o n D e c e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 0 , w h ile a t a th p ro tes t in A b id

jan in th e stre e t I w a s a rre ste d . W e ll, th a t is c o m p lete ly in c o n sis ten t w ith h is te stim o n y , b e c a u se h is te stim o n yw a s th a t h e w a s in the s t or e. N otonl yw as he i n the s t or e, butthe pol i ce c ame i n the s t or e and ro u ste d o u t ev e ryb o d ya n d w e re se e k in g o u t Ju las . T h a t is to tally5

i ncons i s t ent . N ow w hyi n t he w or l d w oul d the per s on w ho pr epar ed [D i abat e’ s as y l um appl i cat i on] w antt o thr ow i n a pr ot es t ? T hati s notw hat i s i m por t ant . W hati s i m por t anti s the arr es t . So I bel i eve the r es pondentl i ed beca us e w e have thi s gl ar i ng i ncons i s t encyand no val i d r eas on w hythe p r e p a r e rwo u l d wa n tt o g i l d th e l i l yo n th a ta s p e c t . No w wh a te l s e d o we h a v e ? R e sp o n d e n t tes tifie d th a t h e w a s h e ld f o r o n e w e e k . C lea r. A n d y e t, h e w a s h e ld f

o r f o u r h o u rs a c c o rd in g to E x h ib it 2 . . . .

. . . T h e re sp o n d e n t tes tifie d v e ryc lea rlyth a t h e w a s re lea se d w ith the under s t andi ng he w as notgoi ng t o be i nvol ved i n pol i t i cs . T hati s one of th e re a so n s h e b e liev e s h e w a s re lea se d . A n d h e d id n o t en g a g e in p o lit ics if y o u b e lie v e h is te s tim o n y . H e d id n o th in g to a ttr a c t th e p o lic e ’s a tte n tio n . .

. . W el l , i f y ou r ead hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, i ts t at es . . . on J anuary25, 2001, w hi l e I w as i n a bi g pr ot es t , the s ecur i tyfor ces came t o ourhous e and m yf a th e r trie d to p ro tec t m yf a m ilya n d th e yk ill e d h im . W e ll, f irst o f a ll, th e re is a m a

jo r in c o n sis ten c yb e c a u se th e re sp o n d e n t sa id I w a s n o t at a p ro te s t, in f

a c t, I w a s o b e y in g th e p o lic e . H e is lyin g . . . .

. . . T hi s i s a man w ho cl ai m s t o be a pol i t i cal per s on . . . . I have nothi ng t o s how thathe w as evera mem berof the R D R . N othi ng. I n fac t , he su b m its a n a sy lu m a p p lica tio n . . . w h ich is v e ryc lea r[ :] I b e lo n g to th e Ju la ethni c gr oup. I have ne verbeen i nvol ved i n pol i t i cs . I do notpr act i ce pol i t i cs and then he ha s the ef fr ont eryatthe hea r i ng t odayt o s ay , w el l , w hat I r eal l ym eantw as I j oi ned, butI r eal l ydi d notj oi n unt i l aft erI w as p e rse c u ted . T h a t is a lo t o f n o n se n se . W h o in th e w o rld d o e s h e th in k h e is f o o lin g ? I h a v e a c lea r sta tem e n t th a t sa y s I h a v e n e v e r b e e n in v o lv e d in pol i t i cs and s uddenl yhe bec om es M r . R D R , w i th no back- up, no document at i on. (A p p . 1 2 -1 5 .) I n the l engthypas s age quot ed above , the I J i dent i fi es a s tr i ng of i ncons i s t enci es and fa i l ur es bythe Pet i t i onert o corr obor at e hi s t es t i m ony . Sever al of the i ncons i s t enci es ci t ed bythe I J go t o t he hea r tof the Pet i t i oner ’ s compl ai nt , i nvol vi ng the al l eged i ns t ance s of per s ecut i on and hi s pol i t i cal act i vi ty . See B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A ddi t i onal l y , had Pet i t i onerbeen a ct i ve i n R D R as cl ai m ed, s om e corr obor at i on6

s houl d have be en forthcomi ng. Pet i t i oners ugges t s thatthe I J err ed i n demandi ng corr obor at i on, and ci t es the N i nth C i r cui tdeci s i on i n A bovi an v. I N S forthe pr opos i t i on that“[a ] l ack of

corr obor at i ng evi dence i s cert ai nl ynots ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng an adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. ” 219 F. 3d 972, 978 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . Subse quentt o A bovi an, how ever , thi s C our thel d i n A bdul ai v. A s hcr oftthatcorr obor at i on m ays om et i m es be re q u ire d o f

o th e rw ise -c re d ib le te stim o n y . 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). In A b d u lai, w e f o rm u late d a th re e -p a rt in q u iry : (1 ) a n id e n tific a tio n o f f a c ts f o r w h ich it i s re a so n a b le t o expec tcorr obor at i on; ( 2) the pr es ence orabs ence of s uch corr obor at i on i n the r ecor d; and ( 3) the ade quacyof appl i cant ’ s expl anat i on fori t s abs ence . I d. at554. I n the i ns t ant case, the IJ s at i sfi ed thi s t est . H e fi rs tpo i nted out that Pet i t i on er had i den t i tydo cum ents , i ncl udi ng “a va cci nat i on cert i fi cat e, a cons ul arcert i fi cat e, [and] a vot i ng car d, ” s how i ng that “o b v iou slyh e se em s to b e a b le t o g et do cu m en ts. ” (A p p . at 12 . ) P eti ti o n er, ho w ev er, fai l ed to presentanycorr ob orat i on of h i s t est i m on ythat he w as an R D R m em ber. H e al so f a iled to e x p lain th e a b se n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . It th e re f

o re w a s n o t im p ro p e r f

o r th e IJ to c o n s i d e rth e a b s e n c e o f c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f

P e t i t i o n e r ’ s t e s t i mo n ya b o u th i s RD R m ember s hi p. W e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . H avi ng r efus ed t o cr edi tPet i t i oner ’ s fl uctuat i ng s um m aryof the fa ct s , the I J found that P et i t i on er fai l ed to m eethis bu rden of proof enti t l i ng him t o asy l um st atus. I V.7

I n addi t i on t o as y l um , Pet i t i oners eeks w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde r C A T . A per s on w ho s eeks w i thhol di ng of r emoval m us ts how thathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” on acc ountof one of the fi ve gr ounds enumer at ed i n § 11 01 (a) (42)( A ). T o sho w that hi s l i fe or freedom w ou l d b e t hreat ened , the ali en m ust estab li sh a “ clea r pro b ab il ityo f p erse cu ti o n . ” IN S v . S tevic, 46 7 U . S . 4 0 7 , 4 3 0 (19 8 4 ). U n d e r th e c lea r p ro b a b ili tysta n d a rd , an a lien m u st p ro v e th a t itis “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” thathe w oul d be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on on acc ountof one of the fi ve s t atut orygr ounds . I d. a t 4 2 4 . T h is c lea r p ro b a b ili tysta n d a rd re q u ire s a g re a ter e v id e n tiary sh o w in g th a n is neede d t o es t abl i s h a w el l founded f ear— the r equi r ementforas y l um . C ar doza- Fonse ca, 480 U . S. at446. “Thus, i f an a l i en fa i l s t o es t abl i s h the w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on r equi r ed fora gr antof as y l um , he ors he w i l l , bydefi ni t i on, have f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h the cl earpr obabi l i tyof per s ecut i on” nee ded t o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval . Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469- 470 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n the ca s e atbar , i n w hi ch Pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o m ake outa cl ai m foras y l um , he ca nnotm eetthe “c l earpr obabi l i ty ” s t andar d. T he IJ th e re f o re d id n o t er r in d ism iss in g P e tit io n e r’s c laim f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. Pet i t i oner ’ s C A T cl ai m al s o l acks m er i t . T o obt ai n r el i ef unde rC A T , an appl i cant m us tes t abl i s h “thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved to the p rop o sed co u n tryo f re m o v al. ” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2002) ( quot i ng 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) ) . O nce a n appl i cantes t abl i s hes a cl ai m forr el i ef underC A T , he ors he maynotbe r emoved t o the countryw her e the t or tur e occ urr ed or8

w oul d occur . Z ubeda, 333 F. 3d at472. T he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef underC A T i s on t he appl i cant . 8 C . F. R . § 208. 13( a) . A partfr om l oos el ys t at i ng thathe w as “ tortu red ” b ythe p o li ce d u ri n g h is fir st de tention , P eti ti o n er m ak es li tt le or n o ef fo rt t o m eethi s hi gh bur den. H avi ng deni ed Pet i t i oner ’ s as y l um cl ai m , the I J di d noterrw hen h e d e n ied th e C A T c laim a s w e ll. Fi nal l y , as t o t he cont ent i on thatthe I J fai l ed t o r endera dec i s i on aboutthe pol i t i cal a n d trib a l p e rse c u tio n p re se n t in Iv o ryC o a st, w e o b se rv e th a t p ro o f o f su c h c o n d iti o n s in the abs tr acti s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tPet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s . T he Pet i t i onerhas the bur den of s how i ng how s uch condi t i ons , i f theyi n fac texi s t ed, di r ect l yaff ect ed hi m . T hi s he fa i l ed t o do. V. W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons pr es ent ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u r th e rd i s c u s s i o n i s n e c e s s a r y. T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed .