P urs uan t t o Fed eral Ru le o f Ap pel lat e P roce du re 43 (c)(2 ), A tt orn ey Gen eral Mi chael B. 1 Mukasey has bee n substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Albe rto R. Gonzales as a r espondent in this case.

-1- 06

- 14 69

- ag A l i v. M uk as ey 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 3 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 4 5

____________________________________ 6 7 August Term, 2007 8 9 (Argued: Fe bruar

y 19, 2008 Dec ided: J une 18, 2008) 10 11 Docke t No. 06-1469-a g 12

____________________________________ 13 1 4 P E T E R C O N RA D A LI, 15 16 Petitioner , 17 18 – v. – 19 20 MI CH AE LB . M UK ASE Y, AT TO RN EYGENE RA LOF TH E U NI TE D ST AT ES, 1 21 22 Re sp on de nt. 23 24

____________________________________ 25 26 Be fore : KEARSE, CAL AB RESI , and KAT Z MANN, Circ uit J ud ge s. 27 28

____________________________________ 29 30 Petition for reviewof a de cision of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irming 31 a dec ision by

I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”) A lan Vomac ka and te rminating the petitioner’s grant of 32 defe rra l of remova l under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . We hold that the I J ’s 33 se e min gbia s a g a ins t th e pe tit ion e r a nd re lia nc e on un fo un de d a ssumpt ion s a bo ut h omo se xua ls 34 de pr ive d th e pe tit ion e r o f h is r ig ht t o a fa ir he ari ng . A c c or din g ly , th e pe tit ion fo r r e vie w i s 35 GRANTED, the decision of the B I A is VACATED, a nd this case is REMANDED to the BIA for 36 further

proce eding s consistent with this opi nion, including a ssignment to a dif fer ent I J

. 37

_ ________________________ 38-2- 1 L EON F RESC O (Christopher Nug ent, of counsel), Holland & 2 K n i g h tL L P , M i am i , F l a . ( O l i v i a C a s s i n , T h e L e g a l A i d

S o c i e ty, 3 Civil Practice Are a, New Y ork, N.Y., on the brief ), for Petitioner

. 4 5 THOMAS H. DUPREE, U.S. Depa rtment of Just ice ( Peter D. 6 Keisler, D avid M. McConnell, Papu Sandhu, on the brief ), 7 Washington, D.C., for Respondent

. 8

_____________________________________ 9 CAL AB RESI , Circuit Judge :

Petitioner Peter Conrad A li, a forty -two-year old Guy anese native and c itiz en, petitions 10 11 for r eview of

an orde r of the B I A af

firmingI J Vomacka ’s dec ision to t erminate his gr ant of 12 defe rra l of remova l under the CAT. In light of the inappropriate re marks made by I J Vomacka

– 13 which included gratuitous comments on the petitioner’ s sexualit y , as we ll as unfounded 14 speculations about homosex uals in g ener al – we be lieve the a ppropriate course is to gra nt the 15 petition for re view, vac ate the B I A’s dec ision, and remand this ca se for a re hear ing be fore a new 16 I J

. 17 I. BACK GR OUND 18 A. The 1997 and 1999 Deportations 19 Ali came to the United States from Guyana in 1980, at ag e four teen, a nd attained law ful 20 perma

nent re sident status five y ear s later. Ove r the c ourse of the next ten y ear s, he established a 21 lon garr e st r e c or d a nd wa s c onvic te d o f n ine the ft -r e late d c ri me s. In 1 99 5, he wa s p la c e d in 22 remova l proce eding s, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)( 2)(A) (ii) (tra nsfer red to 8 U.S.C. § 23 12 27 (a )( 2) (A )( ii) ), fo r h avin gbe e n c onvic te d o f t wo c ri me s invo lvi ngmor a l turp itu de . A nd in 24 September 1997, he was de ported to Guyana. 2 5 S o m e t i m e th e r e a f t e r , i m m i g r at i o no f

f i c i a l s d i s c o v e r e d

th atA l i h a d

r e e n t e r e d th e U

. S

. In 26 Dec ember

1998, the Immigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) ser ved him with a Notice of 27 Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Orde r, pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1231(a) (5), whic h restore d theAcc ordingto I NS files, the U.S. Attorney ’s offic e for the Easter

n District of Ne w York 2 declined to pr osecute Ali for illeg al re entry at that time. -3- 1 pr ior

de po rt atio n o rd e r a

nd c ha rg e d A li w ithill e g a l r e e ntr y . In a c c or da

nc e wi th t hat or de r, Al i 2 was de ported for

a sec ond time in March 1999. 2 3 But Ali found his wa y back into the U.S. And in Jul y 2000, immigration authorities 4 place d Ali in removal proc eeding s once more . As befor e, they reinstated the August 1997 5 deportation order a nd char g ed Ali with illega l ree ntry . This time, however , when Ali wa s in I NS 6 c us tod

y , h e ind ic ate d th at he wi sh e d to a pp ly fo r r e lie f f

ro m r e mov a l. 7 B

. Ali’s Application for Relief from a T hird Deportation 8 In May

2004, Ali filed for a sylum, withholdi ngof re moval, and re lief under the CAT, 9 c la imi ngthat he ha d e xpe ri e nc e d p a st t or tur e and that he fe are d f

utu re tor tur e by the Guy ane se 10 g ov e rnme nt b e c a us e of his e thn ic ity

(h e is o f E a st Ind ian a

nc e str y ) a nd the fa c t th at he is a 11 criminal depor

tee. More specific ally , Ali ga ve the f ollowing a ccount, whic h we have culled f rom 12 his Application for Asylum and/or Wit hholding of Removal and De clar ation in Support of the 13 Petition for Convention Aga inst Torture Protec tion. 14 Upon ar

rival at the a irport in Guy ana in August 1997, uniformed Guyanese police or 15 immigration officer s arr ested Ali and f orce d him into a dark, hot holding r oom. There , he wa s 16 interrog ated a

bout his criminal history , handcuf fed, de prived of f

ood, and deta ined over

night. 17 The ne x t morning, Guy anese officia ls transfer red him to another

prec inct wher e he w as deta ined 18 for se vera l day s, ag ain without food, and fur ther interr og ated a

bout his criminal rec ord. On the 19 first day

of this detention, police off icer s handcuf

fed a nd beat him until he lost consciousness. 20 On the morningof the sec ond day , two police off icer s entere d Ali’s cell we aringmasks; one 21 ra

pe d a nd so do mize d h im. Th e oth e r r e mark e d th at th e y did no t w ant d e po rt e e s f

ro m th e U. S. i nB e c a us e the I NS d id n ot s ub mit

thi s d oc ume nt i n a dv anc e , b ut r athe r s ou g ht t o h ave it 3 admitted into evidence duringthe hea ring , I J I skra r efuse d to rec eive it for the truth of the matter -4- 1 Guy ana. A li lostconsciousness dur ing the assault; he aw oke to find himself cha ined, hang ing 2 fr om t

he ja il c e ll b ars , a

nd ble e din gfr om h is r e c tum

. 3 A d ay

or so a ft e r t hat in c ide nt, Guy ane se a

uth or iti e s tr ans fe rr e d A li t o a no the r p re c inc t, 4 and

duri ngpr oc e ssi ng , h e wa s a ble to e sc a

pe . H e we nt f

ir st t o B e rb ic e , a

nd the n, via sp e e db oat, 5 to Bra zil , wher e he me t a smug g ler named J uan. With J uan’s he lp (and in exchang e for $4,000, 6 wh ic h A li’ s mo the r w ir e d to Juan fr om N e w Y or

k) , A li t oo k a

bo at to Gu ate ma la , a

nd a bu s into 7 Mexi co; he c rossed the U .S.-Mexi co borde r on foot somewhe re in Ar izona. From there , he 8 hitchhiked his way back to his mother’ s house in Quee ns, New Y ork. 9 In 1999, afte r he w as depor ted to Guy ana f

or the sec ond time, Ali was ag ain ar rested by 10 Guy ane se a

uth or iti e s u

po n a rr iva l. B e lie vin gthat th e y wo uld mis tr e at hi m, h e fl e d f

ro m th e ir 11 c us tod

y . O nc e a g a in, he we nt t o B e rb ic e , whe re he loc ate d Jua n. WithJuan ’s so n’ s p a ssp or t, A li 12 trave led to J amaica . And in J amaica , he obtained a J amaica n passport with a U.S. visa, which he 13 used to board a

flig ht from J amaica

to J ohn F. Ke nnedy

airport in Ne w York City

. 14 C. TheMe rit ’s He ar ing be fore IJ Is k ra 15 I J Way

ne I sk ra , s itt ingin Arl ing ton , V ir g ini a , h e ld a he ari ngon

the me ri ts o f A li’ s c a se 16 on J uly

16, 2002. At that hear ing, A li testified about the eve nts describe d in his application and 17 responde d to questions. The Gover nment called attention to Ali’s failure in 1999 to tell the I NS 18 about the abuse he cla imed to have e x perie nced in 1997 a nd to seeminginconsistencies in Ali’s 19 a c c ount. F or

e xamp le , it

c on fr on te d A li w ithan I

NS d oc ume nt d ate d Augus t 20 00 that, 20 a c c or din gto t

he Go ve rnme nt, ind ic ate d th at A li t old I NS o ff ic ia ls that he c ame to t

he U. S. i n 21 J anuar

y 2000, not sometime in 1999, and that he ar rived by boat, not by

plane, a s he later 22 c la ime d. Al i de nie d g ivi ngthe I NS t his inf or matio n. Th e Go ve rnme nt a lso pr e se nte d A li w ith 3asser

ted. He a dmitted it s olely for its impeac hment value.

-5- 1 letters , purpor

tedly written by

Ali and addr essed to the Guyanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., 2 in which the author indicated that, if r eturne d to Guy ana, he would rob banks, se ll crac k coca ine 3 to the Guy anese people, a nd blow up Guy ana. A li stated that he did not write these letters. 4 D

. IJ I

skra’s July

16, 2002 Dec ision 5 On J uly

16, 2002, I J I skra issued a ruling on Ali’s reque sts for re lief. See I n re Pete r 6 Con ra d A li , N o. A 3 0 1 05 17 7 ( I mmi g . Ct . A rl ing ton , V a ., July 16 , 2 00 2) . I J I sk

ra fo un d th at A li 7 had not met his burden of provingthat he wa s perse cuted be cause of his ethnicity , so he wa s not 8 elig ible for a sylum. But I J I skra f ound cre dible Ali’s acc ount of the phy sical and se x ual abuse he 9 experience d in Guy ana in 1997. “ [A] lthough this responde nt . . . has committed many offe nses 10 and has ma de inconsistent statements,” I J I skra state d, “[i] t is the opinion of the Court . . . that 11 the re spondent’s testimony with respec t to what happene d to him when he wa s arr ested in 1997 12 by

the Guyanese authorities is cre dible.” I J I skra e mphasized that Ali’s acc ount was 13 corr oborate d by

the bac kg round information submi tted, which docume nted “inhumane and 14 de g ra din g ” pr iso n c on dit ion s and re c or de d “ nume ro us ins tanc e s” of mur de r, tor

tur e , a nd ill 15 treatment by

the Guyanese police, includinginstances involving“cr iminal suspects.” 16 On the basis of this cr edibility finding , I J I skra c oncluded that Ali had me t his burden of 17 pr ov ingthat he wo uld be su bje c t to tor

tur e if re tur ne d to Guy ana . I J I sk

ra de nie d A li’ s r e qu e st 18 for withholdingof re moval under the CAT, howeve r, bec ause A li’s criminal history sug g ested 19 that he would be a dang er to the U .S. community . Instead, I J I skra grante d Ali defe rra l of 20 remova l and left it to “the discr etion of the I NS as to whether

or not [Ali] shall be re lease d from 21 custody .” Ne ither par ty appea led this decision. 22 E. TheTe rm ina tio n o f D e fe rra l of Re mo v al Pro c e e dings be

fore IJ Is k raOn Marc h 1, 2003, the I NS cea sed to exist . I ts responsibiliti es we re divided a mong 4 three ag encie s formed w ithin DHS. This provision states that, at any time while defe rra l of remova l is in effec t, the I NS may 5 fi le a mot ion wi th t he I mmi g ratio n Co ur

t ha vin ga dmi nis tr ativ e c on tr ol o ve r t he matte r –

in t his case , the Immigration Court si tting in Arling ton, Virg inia – to schedule a new he aringto consider whether defe rra l of remova l should be terminated. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.17(d)(1) . I f the I NS has offe red r eleva

nt evidence that was not pre sented at the prior hea ring , the Immigration Court should gr ant the motion and make a de novo deter mination as to whether the alien will more likely than not be torture d in the country to which re moval has bee n defe rre d. Id. at (d)( 3). DH S’ s mo tio n to te rm inate may a lso have be e n mo tiv ate d b y a ha be a s p e tit ion

that A li 6 filed in the Easte rn District of Vir g inia challeng ing his c ontinued detention. -6- 1 In July

20 03 , th e De pa

rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity (“ DH S” ) fi le d a

mot ion to t e rm inate 4 2 Ali’s defe rra l of remova l, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(d)( 1). DHS asked the I mmigration 5 3 Court

to r e ins tate Al i’ s c a se to i ts c a le nd ar t o c on sid e r “ ne w e vid e nc e ,” e vid e nc e that w ou ld 4 sh owthat c ountr

y c on dit ion s in

Guy ana no lon g e r s up po rt e d A li’ s CA T c la im. 6 5 DH S atta c he d to its mot ion its “ ne w e vid e nc e ,” wh ic h in c lud e d th e re su lts of a State 6 Depa

rtment inquiry , conducte d at DHS’s re quest, “into the spec ific conditions for r eturning 7 c ri min a l a lie ns .” On the ba sis of

an e xch ang e wi th t

he U. S. E mba ssy

in Guyana , th e State 8 De pa

rtme nt wro te a

le tte r t o D HS i nd ic atin gthat it “ d[id ] not

kn owof any c a se s o f s y ste matic 9 abuse of

criminal depor

tees upon their r eturn to Guyana or instances of

singlingout of criminal 10 deporte es for

abuse by police,” nor

did it know “of any

case s of abuse by

the immigration police 11 in Guyana .” DH S a lso atta c he d tw o le tte rs that A li a lle g e dly se nt t o th e Guy ane se Em ba ssy in 12 Was hin g ton

(t he same le tte rs re fe re nc e d in the July 16 , 2 00 2 h e ari ng ). Th e se state d, in 13 su

bs tanc e , th at A li h a d n o f amil y le ft in Guyana

and wo uld make tr ou

ble the re if

the Em ba ssy 14 g ave U .S. imm igr ation officia ls travel docume nts for him. 15 The DH S moti on also argued that Ali re mained “a dang er to the c ommunity if rele ased,” 16 and that “D HS will not be allowed to detain him indefinitely” bec ause “ [t ]he I NA conta ins an 17 imp lic it l imi tatio n” on de te nti on . T he de te nti on pe ri od a llo we d is on ly

that w hic h “ is r e a so na

blyAcc ordingto DHS, these proc eeding s were instit uted at the r equest of Immigration and 7 Cus tom s E nf

or c e me nt ( “ I CE” ), wh ic h is an inve sti g ativ e arm of the DH S. Counsel for DHS sug g ested that Ali wa nted to be re stored to DHS custody to ensure that 8 his habea s petition in t he Ea stern District of V irg inia could be r esolved (othe rwise the D istrict Court might have had to g rant a motion by

the U.S. Attorney ’s Off

ice in Virg inia to dismi ss Ali’s pe tit ion ). B ut b e fo re us , A li c on te nd s th at ha d h e re ma ine d in the c us tod

y of the U. S. M ars ha ls, his habea s petition would not have bee n aff ecte d beca

use that custody

flowed f rom his previous detention under

DHS custody ; he asser

ts that the rea l rea son he wa s relea sed into DHS custody wa s so that hi s CA T t e rm inatio n c a se c ou ld b e c omp le te d in Ne w Y or k, at a de te nti on fa c ili ty wher e the c ase w ould be assig ned to either I J Alan Pag e or I J Vomacka . The doc ket re port from the Easter n District of Ne w York sug g ests still another version of e vents: it indi cate s that Ali’s counsel in his criminal ca se (a n attorney differ ent from the attorney repr esentinghim then, or the one re prese nting him now, in his immi g ration ca se) r equeste d to have Ali re lease d into DHS custody in order to r esolve his outstanding problem with the immigration authorities. We have no ins ig ht i nto why

Al i’ s c ouns e l w ou ld h ave su bmi tte d s uc h a

re qu e st. In any case , on J une 2, 2004, af ter some c onfusion as to wher e DHS intended to plac e -7- 1 nece ssary

to bring about re moval”; “[o]nce remova l is no longer rea sonably

fore seea ble, 2 continued dete ntion is no l ong er a uthorized under the I

NA.” 3 I J I skra he ld a pre liminary hear ing on the motion in November 2003. He convene d a 4 hear ing on the merits on Fe bruar y 3, 2004, but then g rante d a continuanc e until March 25, 2004, 5 to a llo w c ouns e l f or DH S to se e k St ate De pa

rtme nt r e vie w o f s ome of Al i’ s su bmi ssi on s a

nd to 6 arr ang e fo r S tate De pa rtme nt w itn e sse s to te sti fy te le ph on ic a lly

(I J I sk ra imp lie d th at he wo uld 7 otherwise g ive the State De partment letter limit ed we ight)

. 8 On Marc h 5, 2004, howeve r, the U.S. Attorney ’s Off ice f or the Ea stern District of N ew 9 Y o r

k s t art e d c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s tA l i , c h ar g i n gh i mw i thi l l e g a l r e - e n tr y. A c c o r d i n g l y, 7 10 the U.S. Marsha ls Service in Ne w York took Ali into custody and I J I skra, upon DH S’s motion, 11 closed Ali’s proc eeding s “until a time when [Ali] can be returne d to DHS custody .” 12 F. The Change of Venue and the2004 Procee dings before IJ Vomack a 13 About two months later, on May 27, 2004, the District Court for the E astern D istrict of 14 New Y ork held a bond hear ing a s to Ali. And for re asons that ar e not clea r fr om the rec ord, the 1 5 p art i e s d i s c u s s e d r e l e a s i n gA l i f

r o mth e M ar s h a l s ’ c u s t o dy an d r e tur n i n gh i mt o D H S c u s t o dy. 8A l i , th e D i s tr i c tC o urta dv i s e d th e p art i e s o f

i t s i n t e n tt o r e l e a s e A l i i n t o D H S c u s t o dy. DHS complained of

the “undue burden” it would incur should it have to arr ang e for and 9 transport Ali fr om one detention fa cility to another. F or e xamp le , I J Vom a c ka

a sk e d c ouns e l, “ Wel l, i s h e sti ll b e ingpr os e c ute d o r n ot?”, to 10 which counse l for DHS re plied, “He ’s still being prose cuted to my knowledg e.” “ Why

did they rele ase him into the custody of Immigration? ” I J Vomacka then inquired. “ What are the y g oing to do with their prosec ution if he’s depor ted out of the c ountry ? ” Counsel re sponded that he “wa sn’t prepa

red to a nswer this question rig ht now” and w ould “have to look into i t.” On the basis of the se re sponses, I J Vomacka stated that he “ d[i d]n’t see any rea son the case has to be done here [i n New Y ork].” “I don’t think it m akes se nse for me to sit here a

nd listen to tape rec ording s of a pr ior hea ring , which I

think Iwould have to do unde r the re g ulations and then try

to assess whethe r I

can be lieve the r espondent . . . [a]ll beca use the Gove rnment doesn’t wa

nt to take him in a van down to Virg inia,” I J Vomacka rema rked. “ Idon’t think that’s jus tif ie d. ” I J Vom a c ka

be lie ve d it

wo uld take “ ho ur s” to r e vie w the re c or d, and he “ re a lly hate[d] t o think about spending five or six hours reviewingever y thing that ha [d] happene d, when for Judge I skra, it would proba bly take ha lf an hour to r emember whateve r wa s important about the last proce eding s.” -8- 1 Th at sa

me da y , D HS f ile d a mot ion in t he I mmi g ra

tio n Co ur t in Ar lin g ton , V ir g ini a , s e e kin gto 2 reope n the administratively closed CAT ter

mination hearingand cha ng e venue to the Var ick 3 Street De tention Fac ility in New Yor

k. Meanwhile, on J une 3, 2004, I J I skra grante d DHS’s 4 reque st for a c hang e of ve nue. And sometime late r that month, the ca se wa s assig ned to I J Alan 5 Vomacka . Ali promptly filed a r equest for

a cha ng e of ve nue bac k to Virg inia, which DHS 6 opposed. 9 7 At a hea

ringon J uly

22, 2004, I J Vomacka

expressed conf

usion about why

the ca se wa s 8 befor e him, and disapprova l of the unusual wa y in which the ca se had pr ocee ded. In his view, 10 9 “the nor

mal course of eve nts” would be to re turn Ali to Virg inia. He f ailed to see how a 10 pr os e c uti on

fo r i lle g a l r e e ntr

y in N e w Y or

k ma de Ne w Y or

k Ci ty “ the log ic a l pl a c e fo r h is 11 remova l proce eding .” I J Vomacka also questioned whe ther, a s a pra ctical matter , Ali could be 12 both in DHS custody and attendingong oing c riminal proce eding s in the Eastern D istrict of New“[I ]f an alien is g oing to be in Marshal’s c ustody for some c riminal prosec ution, I ’m 11 usually told that there is no fe asible wa y to transfe r him over he re f or a he aringin the I mmigration case. So I

don’t know why

it’s beingdone diffe rently or eve n if it can be done differ ently

in this case.” In this memo, I J Vomacka indicated that he would endea vor to complete the CAT 12 proce edingbefor e the c riminal prosec ution, if that was, indeed, the District Court’s pref ere nce, but that such a c ourse “ raises thre e points of difficulty .” F irst, Ali had thus far be en re prese nted pro bono by

an atto rn e y

fo r t he Catho lic Cha

ri tie s Immi g ratio n Se rv ic e s in Ma ry land . T his attorney was unavailable to par

ticipate in hea

ring s in New Yor

k. Second, the pr ocee dings be fore I J I s kra“w er e n ev er

tra n s cr i b edb ec au s e t h e D

. H. S

. d i d n o tap p ea l th atru l i n g. ” A n d “[ a] l th o u gh the D.H.S. trial attorne y

has sug g ested that the r eopene d remova l case is to be considere d de novo, this does not mean that the existi ngevidenc e and te stimony can be ignor ed.” T hird, assessingAli’s CAT claim re quired a deter mination of whether

it was probable that Ali would be tortured in Guyana. And “[i] f [Ali] rec eives a ny sentenc e which w ill require him to serve more than a f ew months in jail, the deg ree to which torture is proba ble bec omes more spe culative.”

“ Th e lon g e r t

he se nte nc e wh ic h ma

y [be ] imp os e d o n [hi m], the g re ate r t he de g re e of

un c e rt a int

y which may

arise,” I J Vomacka

continued, and in this ca se, “the potential sentenc ing r ang e . . . might var y from a minimum of time alrea dy serve d to a maxim um of many y ear s.” -9- 1 York. I J Vomacka memorialized his concer ns in a J uly

30, 2004 “Memora

ndum as to the 11 2 Status of the Removal Procee dings.” 12 3 Nonethele ss, on Aug ust 10, 2004, I J Vomacka held another

hear ing on the matter a

nd 4 chang ed his position on the appropriate ness of a llowing the c ase to proc eed in Ne w York. A t 5 this pointhe believe d, based on “ repr esentation[ s]” from the Gover nment, that DHS and the 6 District Court had re ache d an “a g ree ment” by which, “whether

or not Itransfe r venue back to the 7 I mmigration Court in Arlington, Virg inia, the re spondent is goingto stay here .” Or , as he 8 subsequently

explained it, “The District Court in New Y ork is g oing to wa nt him to s tay

here 9 un til the [cr imi na l] c a se is wra pp e d u p b e c a us e wh o k

no ws wh at de lay s w ill oc c ur if he g oe s to 1 0 Vi rgi n i a a n d

h as t o co m e b ac k

an d en t er a p l eao r w h at ev er

m ay b e n ec es s ary . ” P l u s , “i f I ch an ge 1 1 v en u e t o Vi rgi n i a, th er e’ s go i n g t o b e ap er i o d o f d el ay , [ an d ] th e Imm i gra t i o nca s e w o n ’tgo 12 forwa

rd.” The ref

ore, e ssentially

to make use of

the time Ali would have to spend in Ne w York 13 wh ile he e nte re d h is p le a and awa ite d s e nte nc ing , I J Vom a c ka de c ide d to de ny

Al i’ s r e qu e st t oThe re cord on a ppeal doe s not evidence how Ali’s cr iminal case did, in fa ct, proc eed. 13 But a docket r eport fr om the Easter n District of Ne w York shows that in J une and July of 2004, the Go ve rnme nt w a s w or kin gon fi lin ga re sp on se to A li’ s p re -t

ri a l mo tio ns . A li e nte re d a g uil ty ple a on Oc tob e r 5 , 2 00 4. An d o n Jan ua ry 7, 20 05 , h e wa s se nte nc e d to tw o mo nth s’ imprisonment and three y ear s’ supervise d rele ase. -10- 1 tr ans fe r t

he c a se ba c k to Vi rg ini a

and to p ro c e e d w ithit i n N e w Y or k. He sc he du le d a

me ri ts 13 2 hear ing f

or Oc tober 2004. 3 On September 15, 2004, Ali submit ted a motion to supplement the rec ord with evidenc e 4 that he fe are d perse cution in Guy ana ba sed on his sexual orientation (as counse l for Ali explained 5 to the court, Ali had “ rec ently informed c ounsel that he is a homosexual”). I J Vomacka 6 int e rp re te d th is m oti on a s an “ imp lie d r e qu e st f

or pe rm iss ion

to a me nd re sp on de nt’ s r e lie f c la im 7 by raisinga new

basis for r elief” and found it unjustified. 8 On

Oc tob e r 1 9, 20 04 , I J Vom a c ka c on du c te d a

he ari ngon

the me ri ts o f D HS’ s mo tio n to 9 terminate A li’s defe rra l of remova l. He hea rd testimony

from expert witnesses, includingDHS 10 of

fi c e rs wh o h a d inte rv ie we d A li i n 1 99 8 a nd 20 00 , r e sp e c tiv e ly , a

nd a human r ig hts lawye r w ith 11 Amnesty

International. He also he ard te stimony from Ali, who desc ribed a g ain the 1997 ra pe 12 and his 1997 and 1999 e scape s from the Guyanese authorities. Ali also explained why , in 2000, 13 he did

no t te ll U .S. imm ig ratio n o ff ic ia ls a bo ut t he ra pe (“ Iwa s . . . too e mba

rr a sse d to te ll 14 anyone that. . . . [I ]t ’s not something that y ou would tell anyone”) , and he a dmitted writing 15 “some thre ateningletters to the Guyanese Embassy” out of fe ar that he would be de ported, 16 tortured, a

nd killed. Counsel for DHS then cr oss-examined Ali about the details of his ac count 17 and conf

ronted him with repor

ts from Interpol, which state d that Interpol had no r ecor d of Ali’s 18 arr e st i n Guyana . I J Vom a c ka did no t r e vie w the pr oc e e din g s b e fo re I J I sk ra be c a us e he fo un d it 19 difficult to hear

the tape r ecor dings a

nd beca use, owingto the lack of

an appe al from the e arlier 20 decision, the he aringhad not bee n transcr ibed.-11- 1 On Novembe r 10, 2004, I J Vomacka issued his oral dec ision. See I n re Pete r Conrad 2 Al i , No. A 39 105 177 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City , Nov. 10, 2004). He deter mined that Ali was no 3 longe r entitled to defe rra l of remova l beca use he f ailed to pre sent enoug h cre dible evidenc e that 4 he would more likely than not be torture d in Guy ana. T he dec ision emphasized four fa ctors. 5 First, the r ecor d included “r easona bly reliable evidenc e that whe n [Ali ] was questioned in May of 6 2000, he told [an] I mmigration officer that he had no f

ear of per secution if re turned to Guyana.” 7 Second, a r eport submitted by DHS indicated that Interpol had no a rre st warr ants or other

rec ords 8 conce rningAli, even thoug h Ali claimed that he twic e esc aped f rom Guy anese authorities. 9 Th ir d, Al i’ s a c c ount o f h is r e tur n to the U. S. f

oll ow inghis se c on d d e po rt atio n w a s “ ve ry c los e to 10 being‘inhere ntly implausible’” bec ause it involved “[too] many lucky brea ks and coinc idence s.” 11 Four

th, a psy cholog ical eva luation by the Division of I mmigra

tion Health Service s indicated that 12 Al i po sse sse d “ tr a its of pa ra no id, avo ida

nt, de pe nd e nt a

nd ob se ssi ve c omp uls ive pe rs on a lity 1 3 d i s o r d e r . ” T h i s r e p o rt , c o mb i n e d w i thth e th r e at e n i n gl e t t e r s A l i s e n tt o th e G uyan e s e E mb a s s y, 14 sug g ested to I J Vomacka that Ali was “c apable of imag ing [sic] or exagg erating ha rm” a nd that 15 he mig ht “invent[] problems . . . to avoid beingsent bac k to Guy ana.” 16 As for A li’s sex ual orientation, I J Vomacka reiter ated his belief

that this information 1 7 c o u ld

h av e b e e nr a is e d

an d f u ll y e xp lo r e d d ur in gth e e ar li e r

h e ar in g s . H e n o te d

th at “ [i ]t [w a ]s 18 not easy

for the Court to under stand why a re spondent would be willing to disclose forc ible rape 19 by

jail gua rds, but not willing to discuss his own sex ual orientations [ sic] as a homosexual.” But 20 in any

event, I J Vomacka

explained, other evide nce in the r ecor d ( e.g. , th e le tte rs to t he Guy ane se 21 Embassy

) sug g ested that Ali’s a

nnounceme nt of his homosex uality may have be en just another 22 attempt to delay

the proc eeding s (“[T]he raising of a ne w issue, pra ctically on the brink of what 23 should be his final hea ring , tends to look as though it may be anothe r attempt at obstruc tion . . . 24 .”).8 C.F.R. 1208.17(d)( 3) re quires the Immigration Court to base its determination of the 14 petitioner’s e ligibility

for CAT r elief “ on the record of proce eding and ini tia l a pp lic atio n in addition to any

new e vidence submitt ed by the Service or the a lien” (e mphasis added)

. Th e B oa rd wa s d isi nc lin e d to c on sid e r “ the fa ilure of Guy ane se of

fi c ia ls t o c re ate 15 In t er p o l re co rd s fo r [ Al i ] ” a s a “ ‘v al i d gro un d ’ o nwh i ch t o b as e a nad v er s e c re d i b i l i ty fi n d i n g, espec ially as viewe d throug h the lens of the Immigration J udg e’s spe culation as to police proce dure at airports.” ( internal c itation omit ted). -12- 1 G

. The First Appeal to the BIA 2 On Dec ember 10, 2004, Ali filed a timely appea l to the BIA, ar g uing ( 1) that I J Vomacka 3 should have c onsidered the previous proc eeding s befor e I J I skra, ( 2) that, g iven I J I skra’ s prior 4 de c isi on , I J Vom a c ka wa s c oll ate ra lly

e sto pp e d f

ro m makin gan a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty 5 de te rm inatio n, and (3 ) t hat I J Vom a c ka ’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n w a s c le arl y e rr on e ou s. 6 In an Apr il 12, 2005 decision by board me mber Juan Osuna, the B I A found that c ollatera l 7 estoppel did not apply , but nonetheless re manded the c ase be cause I J Vomacka failed to c onsider 8 an “integral c omponent” of the rec ord: I J I skra’ s decision. Se e In rePe te r Co nrad Al i , No. A 39 9 105 177 (B .I .A. Apr. 12, 2005)

. The B I A dee med this failure pa rticularly signific ant “g iven 14 10 [the ] ap pa

re ntl y fa vo ra ble c re dib ili ty

fi nd ingin [the ] pr ior

de c isi on – una pp e a le d b y

DH S – 11 which by

logic should be aff

orded substantial de fer ence if it is based upon a re asoned a naly sis of 12 the evidenc e then of rec ord and is not contra dicted by newly prese nted evidenc e.” I

n its order 13 rema

nding the case , the B I A also discoura g ed I J Vomacka from dra winginfere nces f

rom 14 Inte rp ol’ s la c k o f r e c or ds re g ard ingAl i. 15 15 H. The 2005 Procee dings before IJ Vomack a 16 At a hea

ringin J une 2005, I J Vomacka took y et another

tack. He first expressed 1 7 d i s a

p p o i n t m e n tw i thA l i f

o r r a i s i n go na

p p e a l h i s f

a i l ur e t o c o n s i d e r

th e p r o c e e d i n gb e f

o r e IJ 18 I sk

ra (“ Itho ug ht t

hat it wa s ma de c le ar t o th e pa rt ie s th at I

wa s n ot g oin gto p ay

any atte nti on to 19 the prior tape s. And so I ’m not . . . particular ly happy to know that on appea l the issue was ra isedIJ V o m a c k a r e i t e r at e d

th e s e v i e w s i n

th e o r d e r th ath e u l t i m at e l y

i s s u e d o nr e m an d

. In 16 that order , he devote d multipl e pag es to explaining why he had not r eviewe d the hea ring s befor e I J I sk ra wh e n th e c a se fi rs t c ame be fo re him . H e a lso ind ic ate d th at he be lie ve d th at hi s qu a lif ic atio ns a s an I J, an d im

pli e dly his jud g me nt, surp a sse d I J I sk ra ’s

. Th e a ff ida vit of Mic ha e l Mc Cor

ma c k s tate d th at “ Guy ana is a pla c e wh e re g ay

pe op le 17 cannot live f

ree ly and saf ely g iven the sig nificant hostility [t hat] society

and g overnme nt show the m,” and

that “ [i]f s ome on e is o pe nly g ay in Guyana , th e y

ob vio us ly

may be su bje c te d to sever e violence by

the police” ; “[f] or example, a g roup of g ay prostitutes was put into police custody 5 y ear s ag o and they

wer e bruta liz ed and r aped by the police.” The McCorma ck aff idavit also indicated that c riminal deportee s are sever ely stigmatized in Guy ana, that local ne ws pa pe rs po st the ir

pic tur e s, and

that f ive Guy ane se c ri min a l de po rt e e s h a d b e e n mu rd e re d in re c e nt m on ths , p e rh a

ps the re su lt o f a

“ de ath s qu a d, ” pe rc e ive d to have tie s to the Guy ane se g overnme nt, that was for

med in reta liation for the hig h rate of cr ime in Guy ana. T h e a f f i d av i t o f L i n d a P e ak e d e s c r i b e d

G uyan a a s “ a v i r u l e n t l y h o m o p h o b i c c o un tr y” wher e “[v]iol ent g ay

bashing s are known to occur ,” whe re A li “would very probably be subjec ted to violent assaults,” and whe re “ the police would not af ford him any

rea l protection.” The Peake -13- 1 that Ishould have re lied on those tapes.” ) Nonethele ss, I J Vomacka complied with the orde r 16 2 and

re vie we d th e re c or d o f t

he pr ior pr oc e e din g s. No w that th e c a se wa s o n r e mand , h e a lso 3 allowed Ali to pursue his c laim that he would be torture d in Guy ana on the basis of his sexual 4 orientation, and he acc epted a dditional evidence

. 5 At hear ings in August and September 2005, I J Vomacka hear d testimony

from Ali’s 6 mot

he r, wh o s tate d th at he re tur ne d f ro m G uyana

in 1 99 7 w e ari ngdir

ty , b loo d- sta ine d c lot

he s, 7 from a psycholog ist, who describe d Ali’s mental hea lth problems (post traumatic stre ss disorder 8 and seve re de pression), a nd from Ali, who explained why he believe d he would be tor tured 9 beca

use of his homosexuality . Ali stated that befor e he w as ra ped, the police office rs “c urse[d] 10 [hi m] and ca lled [hi m] anti-man, [which] means fag g ot.” He f urther te stified that the punishment 11 in Guy ana f

or sodomy

is life in prison, and that he would be tortured if imprisoned f or that cr ime. 12 Al i e xpla ine d th at he did no t r a ise his se xua l or ie ntatio n e arl ie r i n th e pr oc e e din g s b e c a us e he did 13 not consider himself g ay at that time. I J Vomacka also ac cepte d aff

idavits from two 14 repr esentatives of the Guyana H uman Rights Association, which descr ibed the violence and 15 hostili ty

direc ted towar ds homosex uals and c riminal deportee s in Guy ana. 17aff

idavit also corr oborate d Ali’s statement that in Guy ana, “ bug g ery” (homosexual sodomy) may re su lt i n a se nte nc e of

lif e imp ri so nme nt. -14- 1 In the end, I J Vomacka rea ffirme d his prior dec ision. Se e In rePe te r Co nrad Al i , No. A 2 30 105 177 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City , Oct. 17, 2005). H e did so on the basis of se vera l “finding s.” 3 First, he f

ound that Ali’s claims – that he would more likely than not be torture d beca use of 4 criminal depor

tee status and be cause of his sexual orientation – were incompatible. He opine d 5 that “ vio le nt d ang e ro us c ri min a ls a nd fe min ine c on te mpt ibl e ho mos e xua ls a re no t us ua lly 6 c on sid e re d to be the same pe op le ,” and the re fo re Al i w a s le ss l ike ly to b e vie we d in

Guy ana a s a 7 member of

either disfa

vored group. 8 Se c on d, he c on c lud e d th at th e e vid e nc e su pp or te d n e ith e r o f A li’ s c la ims . With r e sp e c t to 9 the likelihood of torture a s a cr iminal deportee , the I J found a “ lack of specific objective 1 0 e v i d e n c e ” th ats u c hc o n d u c to c c ur r e d

. A s t o th e l i k e l i h o o d

o f t o rtur e a s a

h o m o s e x u a l , IJ 11 Vo ma c ka

wo nd e re d h owanyon e in Guyana wo uld e ve n k no w t hat A li w a s a

ho mos e xua l. A li 1 2 w o u l d

“ n e e d a p artn e r o r c o o p e r at i n gp e r s o n ” i no r d e r t o b e r e c o g n i z e d

a s a h o m o s e x u a l , IJ 13 Vomacka

theorized, but “there ’s re ason to be c oncer ned about whe ther [Ali] is likely to form 14 su c h a

c los e re latio ns hip wi thi n a fo re se e a ble pe ri od

of tim e .” I J Vom a c ka

no te d th at A li i s a 15 convicted c riminal with “profe ssed mental proble ms” and “ some problems with his personality”; 16 “ [f]urt

he rm or e , . . . [he ] is n ot p art ic ula rl y c omm un ic ativ e or

art ic ulate . H e ’s no t pa

rt ic ula rl y 17 skilled and mature in the w ay he expresses himself, shows his fe eling s, etc.” There fore , “the 18 picture of

[Ali ]as a proud, prof

essed homosexual in Guy ana se ems to be more a n expression of 19 wishful thinking than somethingthat’s par ticularly likely to come true .” In any

case , I J Vomacka 20 c on tin

ue d, the e vid e nc e fa ile d to e sta bli shthat ho mos e xua ls i n Guyana are pe rs e c ute d, muc h le ss 21 tortured.Reg ardingAli’s 1997 trip, I J Vomacka noted a number

of discre pancie s betwee n Ali’s 18 te sti mony and his pr e vio us state me nts ( e.g. , th e ty pe of ve hic le s o n whic h h e tr ave le d, the tim e spent on ea ch), a s well as ce rtain deta ils that seemed implausible ( e.g. , takingjust a day and a night to drive from Ar izona to New York, w alkingthroug h fields in northern Me x ico duringthe ho tte st s e a so n o f t

he y e ar, tr ave lin ga ll the wa y to N e w Y or

k w ith out w a sh ingor

c ha ng inghis supposedly

blood-soaked c lothes). As to Ali’s second tr ip from Guyana to the U .S., I J Vomacka cited a pr evious signe d statement indicatingthat Ali arrive d by boat from Cana da in 2000, which, in his view, contradic ted Ali’s testimony that he fle w into New Yor k from Jamaica in 1999. -15- 1 Third, I J Vomacka found that Ali was not cr edible. I J Vomacka noted “mate rial and 2 substantial inconsistencies in the wa y [Ali ] has described the series of events in 1997 since he 3 wa s p la c e d in

the se pr oc e e din g s. ” F or

e xamp le , A li g ave va

ry inga c c ounts of

the le ng th o f h is 4 detention and the time of day of the ra pe. Mea nwhile, his acc ount of a prison a ltercation in 2004, 5 purp or

te dly pr omp te d b y

c omm e nts a

bo ut A li’ s h omo se xua lity , d id n ot c or re sp on d w ithja il 6 re po rt s. I J Vom a c ka a lso too k is su e wi th A li’ s a c c ounts of his tw o tr ips ba c k to the U. S. 18 7 F i n a l l y, IJ V o m a c k a p o i n t e d o u tth ati n2 0 0 2 , A l i d e n i e d w r i t i n gl e t t e r s t o th e G uyan e s e e mb a s s y, 8 but in

20 04 he a dmi tte d wri tin gtho se same le tte rs . I J Vom a c ka c on c lud e d th at A li w a s “ fl ue nt i n 9 the langua g e of

lying ” and

no t “ a c re dib le pe rs on

in g e ne ra l,” that he ha d n o “ pa rt ic ula r i nte re st 10 or devotion to telling the truth while he’s unde r oath,” and that he w as “e ntirely capa ble of 11 havinginvented the e ntire story .” 1 2 I. The Second A ppeal to the BIA 13 Al i f

ile d a tim e ly a pp e a l w iththe B I A. He c on te nd e d th at I J Vom a c ka ha d a g a in f

a ile d to 14 g ive su ff

ic ie nt d e fe re nc e to t

he pr oc e e din g s b e fo re I J I sk ra , th e re by

vio latin gthe law o f t

he c a se 15 doctrine a

nd his right to due pr ocess. Ali also a rgued that I J Vomacka

failed to de velop an 16 adequate re cord a s to country conditions in Guy ana, that he applied the wrongstandard of law, 17 that he fa ile d to c on sid e r a ll the re c or d e vid e nc e , th at he dis pla y e d b ia s d

ur ingthe pr oc e e din g s, 1 8 an d

th ath e m ad e acl ea rl y

erro n eo u s cr ed i b i l i ty

fi n d i n g.-16- 1 Th e B I A d isa g re e d. In a Marc h 2 7, 20 06 de c isi on – whic h li ke the 20 05 de c isi on wa s a 2 s i n g l e b o ar d

m e mb e r d e c i s i o n( th i s o n e w r i t t e nb y b o ar d m e mb e r La ur i S

. F i l p p u ) –

th e B IA 3 conclude d that all of Ali’s cla ims were me ritless. Se e In rePe te r Co nrad Al i , No. A 39 105 177 4 (B .I .A. Mar. 27, 2006) . The B I A held that the law of the c ase a

rgument failed be cause the 5 regulations require d I J Vomacka to conduct a ne w hea

ringand make a de novo deter mination. 6 Fur

ther, I J Vomacka

allowed Ali to make a

n entirely new c laim – fea

r of torture beca

use of 7 sexual orientation – so I J I skra’ s fac tual finding s could not have c ontrolled. The B I A also found 8 that Ali’s challeng e to I J Vomacka ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination failed bec ause that 9 deter

mination was supported by materia l inconsistencies betwe en Ali’s testimony and his written 10 statements, as we ll as implausible details in his s tory . As for A li’s char g e of bia s, the BIA was 11 “ tr ou

ble d b y se ve ra l of

[I J Vom a c ka ’s ] g ratui tou s r e mark s” and sp e c ulatio ns – n ame ly , h is 12 leng thy

speculation “about the re spondent’s lac k of social skills and the fa ct that it would be 13 un lik e ly

that he wo uld

be a ble to e sta

bli shan o pe n h omo se xua l r e latio ns hip in Guyana ” – b ut i t 14 did not find that any of I J Vomacka ’s comments re ndere d the hea ringunfair. 15 The B I A also made its own assessment of the mer its of Ali’s claim and conc luded that he 16 had fa iled to car

ry his burden. “N othing in the r ecor d indicates that c riminal deportee s have be en 17 harme d or torture d by Guy anese authorities,” a nd Ali failed to show that violence towards 18 ho mos e xua ls i n Guyana (o f whic h th e re wa s e vid e nc e ) w ou ld r ise to t he le ve l of

tor tur e or wo uld 19 occur

“by or with the conse nt or ac quiesce nce of public officia ls.” 2 0 J. TheAp

pe al to O ur

Cou rt 2 1 A l i f

i l e d a t i m e l y p e t i t i o nf o r r e v i e ww i thth i s C o urt , i nw h i c hh e ar g u e s ( 1 ) th atIJ 22 Vo ma c ka ’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n v iol ate d th e B I A’ s p re vio us re mand or de r b e c a

us e 2 3 th e d o c u m e n t s an d e v i d e n c e u

p o nw h i c hIJ V o m a c k a

r e l i e d w e r e p arto f

th e r e c o r d

b e f o r e IJ 24 I skra, a

nd I J Vomacka

never deter mined that I J I skra’ s cre dibilit y deter mination was-17- 1 unrea sonable; (2) that I J Vomacka ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination violates the principle of 2 collater al estoppel, the la w of the c ase doc trine, and the Due Proc ess Clause and is not supported 3 by substantial evidence ; and (3) that I J Vomacka violated Ali’s due pr ocess r ights by conducting 4 an unfa ir hea

ringand by

failingto consider a ll the evidence in support of his sex ual orientation5 based c laim. For the rea sons set forth below, w e re ject Ali’s law of

the ca se and e stoppel 6 arguments. We consider in depth only the most fundamental of

his other claims – that he did not 7 have a

fair a nd full opportunity

to have his ca se consider ed – and w e vac ate a nd rema nd the 8 BIA’s dec ision. 9 II. JU RI SDI CT ION 10 Th e Go ve rnme nt c on te nd s th at th is p e tit ion is s ub je c t to the jur isd ic tio na l ba r i n 8 U. S.C. 11 § 1 25 2( a )( 2) (C ) (pr e c lud ingus fr om r e vie wi ngany fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l a g a ins t an a lie n who is 12 remova

ble by rea son of havingcommitted a cr iminal offense cover ed, inter a lia, in 8 U.S.C. § 13 1182(a) (2)) . The de fer ral of r emoval proc eeding s all stem from Ali’s 1995 depor tation order, 14 wh ic h w a s b a se d o n A li’ s tw o c onvic tio ns of c ri me s invo lvi ngmor a l turp itu de . A li d isa g re e s, 15 arguing, inte r a lia , that he is now re movable by rea son of illeg al re entry , so the jurisdiction16 stripping pr ovision does not apply . We need not dec ide this question because , irrespe ctive of the 17 rea son for re movability , we r etain jurisdiction to consider “ constitutional claims” and “que stions 18 of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (D), inc luding Ali’s c ollatera l estoppel, law of the case , and 19 proce dural fa irness ar g uments. 20 III . CO LLA TER AL ESTOP P EL A ND LA W OF THE C ASE 21 A. Collat eral Estoppel 22 Th e “ fu

nd ame nta l no tio n” of

the do c tr ine of

c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l, o r i ssu e pr e c lus ion , “ is that an issue of law or f

act actua lly litigated a

nd decide d by

a cour t of compete nt jurisdiction in a 23 24 prior ac tion may

not be re litigated in a

subsequent suit betwee n the same pa rties or their pr ivies.”-18- 1 United States v. Alcan A luminum Corp. , 9 9 0 F

. 2 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 8

- 1 9 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 9 3 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, 2 c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l a pp lie s w he n: ( 1) the iss ue s in bo th p ro c e e din g s a

re ide nti c a l, ( 2) the iss ue in 3 the pr ior

pr oc e e din gwa s “ a c tua lly lit ig ate d a

nd a c tua lly de c ide d, ” (3 ) t

he re wa s “ a

fu ll a nd fa ir 4 opportunity

for litiga tion in the prior proce eding ,” and ( 4) the issues pre viously litigated w ere 5 “nec essar

y to support a valid and f

inal judgme nt on the merits.” Gelb v. R oyal Globe I ns. Co. , 6 798 F.2d 38, 44 ( 2d Cir. 1986). This doctrine ha s long be en re cog nized to apply in immi g ration 7 proce eding s. See M atter of Fedorenk

o , 19 I . & N . Dec . 57, 61-62 (B .I .A. 1984). 8 Nonethele ss, it does not require a rema nd in this case. We re ach this conc lusion not 9 beca

use, as the G overnme nt argues, a grant of de fer ral of r emoval is a tempora ry form of r elief 10 and ther efor e ca

n never be a “ final judg ment on the merits.” A de cision awa rdinga tempora

ry 11 form of r elief c an constitute such a judgme nt. See Lummus Co. v. Comm onwealth Oil Refining 12 Co. , 297 F.2d 80, 89 ( 2d Cir. 1961) (“Whether a judg ment, not ‘final’ in the se nse of 28 U.S.C. § 13 1291, oug ht never theless be c onsidered ‘ final’ in the se nse of pr ecludingfurther litigation of the 1 4 s am e i s s u e, turn s u p o ns u ch fa ct o rs as th e n ature o f t h e d ec i s i o n. . . , th e a d equ ac y o f t h e h ea ri n g, 15 and the oppor

tunity for r eview.” ). Rather , we ba se our c onclusion on our conviction that 16 “[c]oll ater al estoppel in the a dminist rative c ontext must be informed by considerations of ag ency 17 structure and leg islative policy .” Duvall v. Attorney Gen. , 4 3 6 F

. 3 d

3 8 2 , 3 9 1 ( 3 d

C i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. In 18 case s dealingwith defe rra l of remova l under the CAT, the exis ting r egulations – promulgated by 19 the J ustice De partment to implement the nation’s oblig ations under the CAT – make cle ar that 20 the doctrine of collate ral e stoppel has limited application. First, the r egulations state that afte r an 21 alien is g rante d defe rra l of remova l, the I J shall inform her that defe rra l of remova l “[i] s eff ective 2 2 o n l y

un t i l t erm i n at ed ” a n d

“[ i ] s s u b j ec tt o re v i ew an d

t erm i n at i o ni f t h e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge 23 deter

mines that it is not likely

that the alien would be tortured in the c ountry to which re moval 24 ha s b e e n d e fe rr e d. ” 8 C. F .R. § 1 20 8. 17 (b )( 1) (i ii) , ( iv) . In o the r w or ds , it is c le ar t hat th e me ri tsOur i nte rp re tatio n o f h owthe do c tr ine of c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l a

pp lie s to thi s c on te xt is 19 informed by

and limited to the fac ts at hand. Thus, we do not exclude the possibili ty that we might v ie w A li’ s argume nt d if fe re ntl y ha d th e Go ve rnme nt r e pe ate dly so ug ht t o te rm inate defe rra l of remova l, revisiting the e x act same body of evide nce until it convinced a n I mmigration Court to alter its estimation of Ali’s CAT claim. -19- 1 of the a lien’s CAT claim may be re visited. I n addition, the regulations direct the immigr ation 2 judge , when c onsideringwhether to terminate de fer

ral of r emoval, to “c onduct a he aringand 3 make a

de novo dete rmination.” Id. § 1 20 8. 17 (d )( 3) . U nd e r t he c ir c ums tanc e s, Al i’ s atte mpt to 4 inv ok e c oll ate ra l e sto pp e l me c ha nic a lly fa ils

. 19 5 B

. Law o

f th e Cas e 6 Th e law o f t he c a se do c tr ine , whil e no t bi nd ing , c ouns e ls a c ourt a g a ins t r e vis iti ngits 7 prior ruling s in subsequent stag es of the sa me ca se abse nt “cog ent” a nd “compe lling” r easons 8 su c h a s “ an inte rv e nin gc ha ng e of c on tr oll inglaw, the ava ila bil ity of ne w e vid e nc e , o r t

he ne e d to 9 corr ect a

clea r er ror or preve nt manifest injustice.” United States v. Tenzer , 213 F.3d 34, 39 ( 2d 10 Cir. 2000) (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). Unde r this doctrine “ courts ar e 11 un de rs tand a

bly re luc tant t o r e op e n a

ru lin gon c e ma de , e sp e c ia lly wh e n o ne jud g e or

c ourt is 12 asked to c onsider the r uling of a diffe rent judg e or c ourt.” Lill bask ex rel. Mauclaire v . Conn. 13 Dept. of Educ. , 397 F.3d 77, 94 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted). 14 Assuming, arguendo , that the doctrine applies to termination hea ring s under the CAT ( we 15 have some doubts, give n that the re g ulations gove rningsuch proc eeding s require de novo revie w 16 of an a lien’s CAT claim, see8 C.F.R. § 208.17(d)( 3)), this ca se pre sented a “cog ent” a

nd 17 “ c omp e lli ng ” re a so n to re vis it the pr ior fi nd ing s. Spe c if

ic a lly , b oth

the Go ve rnme nt a

nd Al i 18 offe red e vidence that was not bef ore I J I skra, e vidence that went dire ctly to the issue of whe ther 19 Ali was likely

to be tortured in Guyana.-20- 1 IV . FAIRN ES S OF T HE PROCE ED IN GS 2 Havingreje cted Ali’s f irst two leg al claims, we now addr ess his third: that the 3 pr oc e e din g s b e low we re fu nd ame nta lly

un fa ir , r e su lti ngin a

de c isi on that c ann ot b e re vie we d in 4 an y m e an i n g f

u l w ay. 5 Al l a lie ns wi thi n th e Un ite d St ate s, “ wh e the r t he ir pr e se nc e he re is l awf

ul, un lawf

ul, 6 temporar

y , or per manent,” a

re e ntitled to procedura l fairne ss. Zad v y da s v . D av is , 533 U.S. 678, 7 69 3 ( 20 01 ); see also Burger v . Gonzales , 498 F.3d 131, 134 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (“A liens, of cour se, 8 are entitled to due proc ess.”) . In the re moval context, that means that an alien who has “pa ssed 9 thr ou g h o ur

g ate s, e ve n il le g a lly , ma

y be e xpe lle d o nly

a ft e r p ro c e e din g s c on fo rm ingto 10 traditional standar ds of fa irness.” Shaugnessy v . United States ex rel. Meze i , 345 U.S. 206, 212 11 (1 95 3) . A t a

min imum, s he “ mus t be a ff or de d th e op po rt

un ity to b e he ard

at a me anin g fu l ti me 12 and in a mea

ningf ul manner,” Burger , 498 F.3d at 134 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed), by

“an 13 impartial and disintere sted tribunal,” Marshall v. Je rrico, Inc. , 4 46 U. S. 2 38 , 2 42 (1 98 0) , a nd in 14 a proc eedingthat is adequate to allow judicial re view, United States v. Me ndoza-Lopez , 4 81 U. S. 15 82 8, 83 9 n .1 7 ( 19 87 ). Thus , “ wh e n a n I J’s c on du c t r e su lts in t he a pp e ara nc e of bia s o r h os til ity 16 such that we cannot c onduct a mea ningf ul reviewof the de cision below, we rema nd.” Islam v. 17 Gonzales , 4 69 F .3 d 5 3, 55 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ); see also Guo- Le Huang v. Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 142, 18 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (or deringrema nd “bec ause of

the I J ’s appa

rent bias a

nd hostili ty

toward” the 19 petitioner). 20 Ali’s fairne ss argument is mult i-fac eted. He has alleg ed that the a g ency failed to g ive 21 me anin g fu l c on sid e ratio n to his e vid e nc e . H e ha s f ur the r a lle g e d th at I J Vom a c ka e ng a g e d in 22 impermissible prejudg ment, persona l speculation, bias, and c onjecture . And he ha s sugg ested 23 that the entire proce eding– from the timing of the Gover

nment’s motion to reconsider his gr antBe cause we ha ve eve ry rea son to believe that re view by a new I J will gr ant the 20 petitioner all the proc ess that is due, we need not a nd hence do not take any

position on t he petitioner’s a

rgument that the proc ess that was g iven, taken a s a whole, violate d the Constitut ion. -21- 1 of de fe rr a l of

re mov a l, t o th e un

us ua l c ha ng e of ve nu e , to I J Vom a c ka ’s c on tin ue d r e fu sa l to 2 defe r to I J I skra’ s cre dibilit y finding – amounted to a violation of due proce ss. We confine our 3 discussion to I J Vomacka ’s inappropr iate comments, a s these alone are enoug h to require a 4 r e m an d

an d r e v i e wb y

a n e wI J. 20 5 We b e g in w iththe dis ple a sure I J Vom a c ka e xpre sse d at be ingtol d th at he wa s to 6 rec onsider the c ase, taking into ac count the re cord of proce eding s in Virg inia. At a pre liminary 7 hear ing on June 9, 2005, I J Vomacka stated that he w as “not . . . pa rticularly happy to know that 8 on appea l the issue was ra ised that Ishould have re lied on those tapes” beca use he “ thought that 9 it was made c lear

to the parties that [he] was not g oing to pa y any attention to the prior tape s.” [ A 10 433 ] He a lso sa id t hat “ [he ] hon e stl y

d[id ] not un de rs tand

the ide a that a s a Judg e , [he ] sho uld 11 base [his] decision on a pr ior dec ision by another J udg e.” And when he issued a dec ision on 12 Al i’ s c a se on

Oc tob e r 1 5, 20 05 , I J Vom a c ka de vo te d mu lti ple pa g e s to e xpla ini nghis 13 dis a g re e me nt w iththe re mand , in c lud inga pa ra g ra phin whic h h e c omp are d h ims e lf fa vo ra bly to 14 I J I sk

ra . T he se c omm e nts , in

and of the mse lve s, do no t e xhibi t th e le ve l of bia s th at w e have sa id 15 deprive s a petitioner of a fa ir hea ring , but in combination with what followed, they are more than 1 6 m er el y

tro u b l i n g. 17 We b e lie ve I J Vom a c ka c le arl y a br og ate d h is “ re sp on sib ili ty to f un c tio n a s a

ne utr a l, 18 impartial arbiter ,” Islam , 469 F.3d at 55, when, without ref ere nce to a

ny support in the rec ord, he 19 voiced ster eoty

pes about homosexual orientation and the w ay in which homosexuals are 20 perc eived, both in the United States a nd Guy ana. F irst, when discussingAli’s claims for r elief, 21 which we re ba sed on two diffe rent a spects of his identity , I J Vomacka relied on what he c alled-22- 1 “the c ommon understanding ” of c riminals and homosexuals: “I t seems to the Court that the 2 c omm on

un de rs tand ing , whic h I

be lie ve wo uld

a pp ly fr om t he U. S. t o Guyana , w ou ld s ug g e st 3 that vi ole nt d ang e ro us c ri min a ls a nd fe min ine c on te mpt ibl e ho mos e xua ls a re no t us ua lly 4 considere d to be the same people . . . .” There fore , he conc luded, Ali was less likely to be 5 viewed in Guyana a s a member of either d i s f av o r e d g r o u p an d l e s s l i k e l y

t o b e t o rtur e d

. IJ 6 Vomacka

cited no evide nce in the r ecor d to support this conclusion, and from our r eadingof the 7 rec ord, there was none . Fur ther, these comments demonstrate d a funda mental misunderstanding 8 of the ba sis for Ali’s CAT claim. Ali claimed that he would likely be torture d in Guy ana ( a) 9 be c a

us e he is a

ho mos e xua l, a

nd (b ) b e c a us e he is a

c ri min a l de po rt e e , b ut a lso (c ) b e c a us e he is 10 a ho mos e xua l c ri min a l de po rt e e . In o the r w or ds , h e is a ho mos e xua l w ho , b e c a

us e of his 11 criminal depor

tee status, almost ce rtainly would be deta ined by

g overnme nt authorities upon 12 arr ival. By

treating a spects of A li’s identity as incompatible, I J Vomacka essentially

dismiss ed, 13 without consideration, a c rucia l component of Ali’s a pplication for r elief. 14 I J Vomacka made a second imprope r re mark a bout homosex uals when he sug g ested that 15 no one would per ceive Ali as a homosexual unless he had “ a par tner or c ooperating pe rson.” 16 This comment appea rs to derive from stere oty pes about homosexuality

and how it is made 17 ide nti fi a

ble to o the rs . It is c e rt a inl y no t g ro un de d in

the re c or d, wh ic h, a s I J Vom a c ka no te d in 18 another

part of the decision, sug g ests that “an unma rried a dult man with no children would be 19 suspected of

beinga conte mptible homosex ual in Guy ana.” 20 I J Vomacka ’s improper c omments were not limi ted to those just mentioned. When 21 discussing whether Ali would be able to “ demonstrate that he was a ctually a homosexual” by 22 walkingdown the stree t with a boy friend, I J Vomacka stated that “g iven [Ali’s] criminal re cord, 23 his professe d mental problems, the leng th of time he’s be en deta ined in prison and other fac torsWe note that this is not the first time that we ha ve re manded a

decision by

I J Vomacka 21 based, at least in part, on improper suppositions and musing s. See, e .g. , Singh v. Muk asey , No. 07-1797, 2008 WL833099, at *2 (2 d Ci r. Ma r. 26 , 2 00 8) ; Xianghao Lian v. Gonzales , 240 Fe d. Ap p’ x 914 , 9 15 -1 6 ( 2d

Cir . 2 00 7) ; Mei Zhen Huang v. M ukasey , 256 Fe d. App’x 406, 408 (2d Cir. 2007); Rui Zhong L u v. U.S. De p’t of Justice , 2 17 F e d. Ap p’ x 44, 46 -4 7 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 7) ; Gui Lin v. BIA , 2 00 F e d. Ap p’ x 49, 52 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ); Zhen Tong W eng v. G onzales , 193 Fe d. App’x 15, 16 (2d Cir. 2006). -23- 1 about [Ali] and his bac kg round, it’s not clea r that [he] wil l, in fact, be likely to form a strongor 2 close homosexual relationship whether in Guy ana or

the United States.” I J Vomacka then went 3 on to note “proble ms with [ Ali’s] personality .” F or example, he de scribed A li as “not 4 particula

rly communicative or

articulate” a

nd “not par

ticularly skilled and mature in the w ay he 5 expresses himself, shows his fee lings, e tc.” L ater in the proce eding , I J Vomacka indicated 6 (continuingto operate from the unf ounded assumption that Ali would not be perc eived a s a g ay 7 man unle ss h e c on sc iou sly did so me thi nge xplic itl y

“ ho mos e xua l” ) t

hat he do ub te d A li w ou ld 8 “make his homosex uality obvious in publi c or dr aw the attention of the authorities or the police ” 9 beca

use he is “a

person who mostly

tries to avoid conf

lict, slide away

from proble ms, etc., as 10 opposed to a pe rson who dea ls directly with his difficulties.” These c omments refle ct an imper missibl e re liance on pr econc eived a ssumptions about homosex uality

and homosexuals, as well as a disre spect for the petitioner. And taken tog ether , they amount to the ty

pe of c onduct that we ha

ve said “ results in the appe ara nce of bias or ho sti lity su c h th at w e c ann ot c on du c t a me anin g fu l r e vie w o f t

he de c isi on

be low ” and

we mus t

rema nd. Islam , 4 69 F .3 d at 55 ; see also Guo- Le Huang , 4 53 F .3 d at 15 0 ( re mand ing“ be c a us e 21 of the I J’s a pp are nt b ia s and

ho sti lity tow ard [the pe tit ion e r]” ); Floroiu v. Gonazles , 481 F.3d 970, 974 (7th Cir. 2007) (re mandingbeca use the I J ’s use of la

ng uag e of r elig ious intol era nce

“ ta int s th e pr oc e e din g s, e ro de s th e a pp e ara nc e of fa ir ne ss a nd c re ate s su

bs tanti a l un c e rt a int

y a s to wh e the r t he re c or d b e low

wa s f a ir ly and re lia bly de ve lop e d” ); Lopez-Umanzor v. G onzales , 405-24-

F.3d 1049, 1059 ( 9th Cir. 2005) (re manding“[b] eca use the I J ’s disbelief of

Petitioner rested on pe rs on a l sp e c ulatio n, bia s, c on je c tur e , a nd pr e jud g me nt” a

bo ut d ome sti c vio le nc e “ and be c a us e he re fused to hea

r testimony

that would have c halleng ed those a ssumptions ”). To the extent that the B I A found other

wise, we disag ree . Flor oiu , 481 F.3d at 974 (“The BIA’s conc lusion that the I J did not violate due proc ess is a conc lusion of law which we revie w de novo.” ). We also note that the B I A’s re view of this ca se in no way cure d the def

ects of the proce edingbelow. While the BIA dec ision affirmingI J Vomacka ’s rulingexpressly disavowed

so me of I J Vom a c ka ’s ina

pp ro pr iate c omm e nts , it

did no t me nti on

so me of I J Vom a c ka ’s mos t

e g re g iou s st ate me nts and

inf e re nc e s. An d s ome of

tho se state me nts and

inf e re nc e s se e m li ke ly

to have inf ecte d the B I A’s conside ration of the me rits of this case. N otably , the B I A did not mention how the intersec tion of criminal depor tee status and homose x uality would aff

ect Ali’s likelihood of torture in Guyana. I n this respec t, it may

well have followed I J Vomacka in treating those traits as incompatible. Othe r aspe cts of the B I A’s dec ision, meanwhile, ca st doubt upon whether the B I A re viewed the rec ord with ca re. F or example, at one point the B I A stated that “[n] othing in the r ecor d indicates that c riminal deportee s have be en har med or torture d by Guy anese authorities,” whe n, in fac t, the rec ord shows that the Guyana Police F orce , which has been “ pressure d to monitor the where abouts and a ctivities of [criminal] deporte es on a r egular basis,” has initiated a

policy of interc eptingdeporte es at the a irport, re sulting in interce ptions that “include intensive interrog ations involving seve re phy sical abuse , arbitra ry detentions and e x trajudicial killings.” The rec ord also includes e vidence that the police a nd police-c onnecte d

v i g i l an t e s h av e t ak e nv i o l e n ta c t i o na g a i n s ts u p p o s e d c r i m i n a l s , i n c l u d i n gc r i m i n a l d e p o rt e e s . In

sum, i t is imp os sib le to b e c on fi de nt t hat A li h a s h a d “ a

fa ir and fu ll o pp or

tun ity to h ave his c a se considere d,” Islam , 469 F.3d at 55.-25-

V. CO NC LU SION We do not lightly

rea ch our de cision today . We rec og nize that Ali has now rec eived thre e he ari ng s o n th e me ri ts o f h is C AT c la im, that hi s c a se ha s tw ic e be e n b e fo re the B I A, and that, g ive n in c on sis te nc ie s in

the re c or d th at bo th I Js have no te d, the a g e nc y may we ll r e a c h th e same decision on re mand. In other wor ds, Ali has, in one sense, r ece ived ample “ proce ss,” and more proce ss may

lead to the same re sult. But “[n] o matter how c omplete the panoply of proc edura l de vic e s w hic h p ro te c t a

pa rt ic ula r l ibe rt y or pr op e rt y int e re st, ” fa ir

ne ss a lso re qu ir e s “ that th os e proce dures be neutra lly

applied.” Ciechon v. City of Chicago , 686 F.2d 511, 517 ( 7th Cir. 1982) (footnote omitted). Ali is entitled to a hea ringthat is conducted “ in an unbiased w ay ,” and that allows the B I A and our

Court to “conduct a

meaning ful revie w of the [I J ’s dec ision] .” Islam , 469 F.3d 55. This ca se will continue until Ali rece ives that hea ring

. Acc ording ly , we VA CATE the dec ision of the BIA and REMAND this case f or fur ther proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. I n addition, while we r ecognize I J Vomacka ’s extensive consideration of this matter, we instruct the B I A to assig n this case to a dif fer ent I J on

rema nd. See G uo-Le Huang , 453 F.3d at 151 (rec og nizi ngour “pow er to re quire re assig nment when ne cessa

ry to avoid repe tition of a biased discha rg e of [the I J ’s adjudicative] functions or even to a void the appea

ranc e of substantial injustice”)

.