I M G- 2 7 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3300

___________ S AL AM A R AB AB A B ADAWY, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 36 355 093) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o J . R i efkohl

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t4, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t6, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM S a lam a R ab ab a B a d a w y , a c iti z e n o f E g yp t, w a s a d m itt e d to th e U n ited S tate s in J ul y1978, atage 3. I n Sept ember2007, s he w as convi ct ed i n N ew J er s eyof pos s es s i on of a c ontr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. See N . J . St at . A nn.T h o se “ f a c to rs” in c lu d e d B a d a w y ’s lo n g re sid e n c e in th is c o u n try , h e r in a b ili tyto 1 comm uni cat e i n A r abi c, the abs ence of anyfami l yi n E gypt , herl ack of j ob s ki l l s , and a l e a rn i n g d i s ab i l i ty. 2 §§ 2C : 35- 5b( 10) ( b) ; 2C : 35- 7. B adaw yw as char ged w i th r emovabi l i tyforhavi ng been convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyas defi ned i n I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “IN A ”) § 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(B ) [8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(B ) ] ( il li cittr af fick ing in co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce ), s ee IN A § 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ] , and forhavi ng been c o n v i c t e d o f

a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e , s e e I NA § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ] . B adaw yconce ded thats he w as r emovabl e as char ged and s ought r el i ef unde rthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) , al l egi ng thats he wi l l b e t o rtu r e d o rk i l l e d i n E g yp tb e c a u s e s h e i s a l e s b i a n a n d b e c a u s e s h e h a s two chil dren bo rn out of w edlock, vis i ble t att oo s, and a cri m i nal r ecord i nv olvi ng drugs. D es pi t e “r ecogni z[i ng] the w eakne s s ” i n B adaw y ’ s C A T appl i cat i on, the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) g ran ted re li ef. S p ec ifi ca ll y , the IJ c o n clud ed that B ad aw y ’s “c h ara cterist ics, ” w h en co n side red in co n jun cti o n w ith o ther “ fa ctors” that w ere sp e c if ica llyre late d to h e r, m a d e it m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t sh e w o u ldb e su b jec t to t ortur e i f r emoved. T hi s det erm i nat i on w as bas ed i n parton I n r e G - A - , 23 I . & N . D ec. 1 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 ( BI A 2 0 0 2 ) , wh e r e th e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) g r a n t e d CA T r el i ef t o an I r ani an C hr i s t i an of A rm eni an des centw ho had l i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es for ov er 25 y ears “based on the co m binat i on of f act ors pr esent ed, i ncludi ng [the ap pli cant’ s] re lig io n , h is e th n icity , the d u ra tio n o f h is re sid e n c e in th e U n ited S tate s, a n d h isCo n tr a ryt o th e Go v e rn me n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o n , Ba d a wyr a i s e s q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, wh i c h we 2 have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . See IN A § 242( a) ( 2) ( D ) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ] ; Si ngh v. G o n z a le s , 4 3 2 F .3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 7 -3 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 3 d ru g -r e la te d c o n v ic tio n s in th is c o u n try .” T h e G o v e rn m e n t a p p e a le d . T h e B IA su stai n ed the a p p ea l and o rde red B ad aw yrem o v ed to E g yp t. T h e B o ard c o n c lu d e d th a t M a tter o f G -A - w a s d istin g u ish a b le b e c a u se th e re c o rd in th a t ca se c lea rly es t abl i s hed thatA rm eni an C hr i s t i ans , per s ons as s oci at ed w i th drug tr aff i cki ng, and ci t i zens for ci bl yr eturned ( es peci al l ythos e r eturni ng fr om the U ni t ed St at es ) w er e s ubj ect t o har s h tr eatm enti n I r an. See 23 I . & N . D ec. at369- 372. B ycontr as t , the B I A hel d,

“ th e r e i s n o r e a s o n th a tth e [ E g yp t i a n ] g o v e rn m e n tw o u l d e v e n b e a w a r e th a t[ B a d a w y] b o re c h ild re n o u t o f

w e d lo c k ,” w h e re sh e tes tifie d th a t h e r c h ild re n w o u ldn o t re tu rn to E gyptw i th her . I n addi t i on, the B oar d ci t ed a l ack of evi dence thatthe Egypt i an governm entt ortur es l es bi ans , t att ooed i ndi vi dual s , orr eturni ng ci t i zens w ho have be en c o n v i c t e d o f

d ru g c r i me s ab r o a d . Ba d a wyf i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. We e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e BI A’ s f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 242( a) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ] . T he C A T pr event s the U ni t ed St at es governm entfr om 2 re m o v in g a n a lie n to a c o u n tryw h e re to rtu re w ill o c c u r. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (d )( 1 ). T he t ortur e mustbe “i nfl i ct ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entor ac q u iesce n ce o f” an o ff ici al pe rson . 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(1). I t i s the ap p li ca n t’ s b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h “ th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t” th a t s h e w ill b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 2 ). T h e ap p lic a n t m u s t m e e t th is b u rd e n w ith o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e .4

See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he B I A ’ s deni al of r el i ef u n d e r th e C A T is re v iew e d u n d e r th e su b sta n tial-e v id e n c e tes t. S e e Z u b e d a v . A sh c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e a g re e th a t B a d a w yh a s f a iled to e sta b lish th a t sh e is “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” to be t ortur ed i f r eturned t o E gypt . H ert es t i m onydi d not“es t abl i s h, byobj ect i ve evi dence that[s he] i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at175 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed) . O n di r ectexami nat i on, B adaw ys t at ed thati n E gypt“theydon’ tbel i eve in h av ing k ids o u t of

w ed lock , . . . they ’re v erystr icto n w o m en [,]” an d that tattoo s are “aga i ns tthe M us l i m r el i gi on. ” Lat er , how ever , w hen as ked byheratt orney , “[w ] hatdo y o u k n o w ab o u t E g yp t th at m ak es y o u af raid to g o there , ” B ad aw yresp o n d ed , “I d o n ’t k n o w [ a n y ]th in g ab o u t E g yp t. . . . I ju st k n o w h o w M u slim s a re , an d I k n o w h o w p e o p le fro m m yco u n tyare . ” P art of this kn o w ledg e a p p are n tl yca m e f rom B ad aw y ’s bro ther, w ho t ol d herthatE gypt i an ci t i zens have be en know n t o harm and ki l l w om en bec aus e of thei rt att oos . B utthi s nons peci fi c, s econdha nd as s ert i on fai l s t o m eetB adaw y ’ s bur den of p ro o f. In a d d it ion , the d o cu m en ts th at B ad aw ysu b m itted in su p p o rto f h er a p p li ca ti o n are nots uffi ci entt o s us t ai n a cl ai m forC A T r el i ef. B adaw yr el i ed on a non- governm ent al or gani zat i on r eportconce rni ng “H onourK i l l i ngs , ” w hi ch “r efe rt o the murde rof a w om an byherm al e fa m i l ym ember s fora per cei ved vi ol at i on of the s oci al norm s of s exual i ty , ora s us pi ci on of w om en havi ng tr ans gr es s ed the l i m i t s of s oci al behavi our5

im p o se d b ytra d iti o n s.” B a d a w yd o e s n o t f e a r h a rm f

ro m h e r f

a m ily , h o w e v e r. In f

a c t, B ad aw yclaim ed that sh e h as n o fa m il yli v ing in E g yp t and that h er b roth ers a re “ v ery s upport i ve” of

her . B adaw yal s o pr ovi ded a doc um entt i t l ed “The I s l ami c Sexual M or al i ty , ” w hi ch s t at es thatpr e- m ar i t al s ex i s a s i n, i dent i fi es hom os exual i tyas a cr i m e, and s peci fi es thatthe puni s hm entforunm arr i ed l es bi ans i s 100 l as hes , w hi l e marr i ed l es bi ans ar e t o be s t oned t o death. N ot abl y , how ever , thi s documentappea r s t o pr ovi de det ai l s aboutthe “I s l ami c l egals y s t em, ” and doe s notdemonstr at e thatB adaw yw oul d be to rtu re d u n d e r E g yp tian law . T h e S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rts in d ica te th a t th e re is di s cr i m i nat i on and vi ol ence agai ns tw om en i n E gypt , and thati n the pas tthe pol i ce ha ve t ar get ed homosexua l s us i ng “I nt ernet - bas ed ‘ s t i ng’ oper at i ons . ” The r ecor d al s o cont ai ns d o cu m en ts i n d icati n g that tattoo ing is pro h ibit ed b yIsl am , an arti cle a b o u t th e d an g ers fac ed bya homosexua l m an i n an Egypt i an pr i s on, and a r eportdes cr i bi ng i ncr eas ed p u n ish m e n ts f

o r d ru g v io latio n s. W h ile th is e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t an in d iv idu a l w ith B adaw y ’ s char act er i s t i cs m ayfac e di s cr i m i nat i on orhar as s m ent , i tdoes notcompel the c o n c lu s io n th a t it is lik e ly th a t s h e w ill b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to E g yp t. B adaw yhas notadequa t el ys upport ed herar gum ent s thatthe B oar d pr event ed her f ro m p re se n tin g e v id e n c e , ren d e re d a n a rb itraryd e c isio n , im p o se d a n “ im p e rm iss ib le b u rd e n o f

p ro o f ,” a n d f a iled to c o n sid e r h e r e v id e n c e in th e a g g re g a te. T h e d isc u ss io n s in her bri ef of

her subj ect i ve fe ars , the st and ard for grant i ng asy l um , and revi ew of ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e notr el evantt o thi s pet i t i on. T o the ext entB adaw ycont ends6

thatthe B I A i m pr oper l yw ei ghed the evi dence s he pr es ent ed, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on. See J arbough v. A tt ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “Speci fi cal l y , court s have r ecogni zed a r gum ent s s uch as thatan I m m i gr at i on J udge orthe B I A i ncorr ect l yw ei ghed evi dence , fai l ed t o cons i derevi dence ori m pr oper l yw ei ghed equi t abl e fa ct or s ar e not q u e s tio n s o f

la w u n d e r” IN A § 2 4 2 (a )( 2 )( D ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D )] ). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yBa d a wy ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.