United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Argued June 2, 2008

Decided July 2, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 07‐3321

BESTA CHIKWANDA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A97‐102‐105

O R D E R

Petitioner Besta Chikwanda seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals denying her request for withholding of removal. Chikwanda, who was born in

Zimbabwe and lived there for her entire life before fleeing to the United States in

January 2001, believes that if she is returned to Zimbabwe as ordered, it is more likely

than not that she will be subject to persecution on account of her involvement in the

Movement for Democratic Change (“MDC”), the party opposing the Zanu PF, the

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07‐3321 Page 2

current ruling party led by Robert Mugabe. Chikwanda also alleges that she has

suffered past persecution in Zimbabwe at the hands of Michael Mbofana, whom she

was forced to marry when she was 13 years old. Mbofana, she claims, was abducted by

Zimbabwean guerillas four years after the arranged marriage, but he returned to

Chikwanda’s home years later with members of the Zanu PF Youth to interrogate

Chikwanda about her MDC activities. At that time, she says, he beat her violently and

raped her.

We heard oral argument on this petition for review on June 2, 2008. While awaiting

argument, Chikwanda requested an emergency stay of removal pending review from

this court, as she had been scheduled to report to immigration authorities on May 27,

2008. In an order dated May 12, 2008, we granted the emergency stay of removal but

noted that “Petitioner must understand that a stay of removal does not affect her

obligation to report to custody on May 27.” We added that “[o]nly removal from the

United States is stayed,” thus making it clear that despite our order granting the stay,

Chikwanda still was required to report to the custody of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security’s Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities on or

before May 27, 2008.

At oral argument, we asked both counsel for the Attorney General and Chikwanda’s

lawyer  whether Chikwanda had indeed reported to ICE on May 27. A failure to do so

would make her a fugitive from justice, thereby compelling dismissal of her petition

under the fugitive‐disentitlement doctrine. See Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 727,

rehearing denied, 384 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2004). Neither side knew the answer to that

question, and so we ordered the parties to look into Chikwanda’s status and inform the

court whether or not she had reported to ICE on the required date. In a filing dated June

5, 2008, counsel for the Attorney General informed us that she had spoken with a

supervisor at ICE, who advised that he had no record of Chikwanda’s reporting to

custody on May 27. The ICE representative further stated that either Chikwanda or her

counsel had called the office twice to inquire whether Chikwanda needed to submit to

custody on May 27, and that both times the caller was informed that, yes, Chikwanda

was required to appear at ICE on or before that date. In a letter filed June 12, 2008,

counsel for Chikwanda said that she had been unable to contact Chikwanda and

therefore had no information about whether Chikwanda had reported to ICE. Counsel

further stated that she, too, had called ICE, and had likewise been informed that

Chikwanda did not appear on or before May 27, or on any date since. “Therefore,”

wrote counsel, “we do not dispute the submission entered [on behalf of the respondent]

stating that [Chikwanda] did not appear at her custody hearing.”
No. 07‐3321 Page 3

The following day, we issued an order recounting these facts and requiring

Chikwanda’s counsel to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed under

the fugitive‐disentitlement doctrine. The 10‐day time period that we allowed for that

filing has long since passed, and we have received nothing from counsel. The only

possible inference this course of events supports is that Chikwanda did not report and

that she is therefore a fugitive. We therefore order the petition DISMISSED under the

fugitive‐disentitlement doctrine.