Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60431 Su m m ar y Cal endar DE NI S DAVI S MARI NGO P et i t i on er v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew f

rom an O rder of

t h e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 79 483 831

B e fo r e B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * D e ni s D avis M ar i ngo(M ar i ngo ) pe t i t i o ns f o rr e vi e w o f

a n o r de ro f

t he Boar d o f I m m i gr ati o n Ap pea l s ( B IA) di sm i ssi n g h i s app ealf rom t h e I m m i grati on Ju dg e’ s (IJ) den i alof asyl u m , w i t h h ol din g of rem oval, an d requ estf or r el i ef u n d e r th e C o n v e n tion A g a in st T o rtu re (C A T ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 8, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

2 I . FA CT UAL A ND PROCEDURALHI S TORY M ari n go i s a native an d ci t i zen of T an zan i a. Ini t i al l y, in 2 000 , h e entered t h e U ni t e d St at e s a s ano ni m m i gr antB- 2 vi s a ho l de r . M ar i ngoha s a dm i t t ed t hathe f

r aud ul e nt l y o bt ai ne d thatv i s a byf o r gi ng an i nvit at i o n t o a t t e nd a s e m i nari n t he U ni t e d St at e s . I n 200 1, he s uc c e s s f ul ly c hang e d hi s s t at us a nd o b ta in e das tu d e n t v is a . S h ort l y t h ereaf

t er, M ari n go f

i l ed an a pp l i cat i on f

or asyl u m , al l egi n g pa st persecuti on a n d a w el l

- f ou n ded fear of

p ersec u t i on b ased on hi s pol i t i calopi n i on th a t h e h a de x p r e s s e dins e v e r a l a r tic le s h e h a d w r itt e n fo rp u b lic a tio n s in T an zan i a. H e cl ai m ed to h ave crit i ci zed the T an zan i an g overnm en tan d p ol i ce fo r c e inth o s e a r tic le s . T h e fo r m e r IN S fo u n dth a t h e h a dfa ile dto e s ta b lis h h is e l i gibil i t y f

o ra s yl um a nd r e fe r r e d hi s c as e t o an I J. I n Se pt e m be ro f 2 00 1, t he IN S serv edM a ri n go w i th a N oti ce to A p p e a r( N T A), ch a rg i n g h i m w i th r e m o vabil i t y unde r8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7( a) ( 1) ( B) , a s a n a l i e n who r e m ai ne d i n t he U n i tedS tates for ati m e lon ge r tha n pe rm i tted . T h e n ex t m on th , an IJ t er m i nat ed t he pro c ee di ngs, appar ent l y be c ause i tw as di sc ove r ed thatM ar i ngo h adobtai n ed a st u den tv i sa a n d t h eref ore w as n otrem ovab l e forstayi n g l on ger th a n a llo w e du n d e rh is v is ito rv is a . In D ecem ber of

200 4, t h e D epa rt m en tof H om e land Secu rit y m ai l ed M a ri n go a N T Atha t i n sti tu tedn ew rem ov a lpr oce ed i n gs an d ch a rg edh i m w i th rem ov a b i l i ty u n d er 8 U . S . C . 1 2 2 7 (a)( 1 )( C )(i) b a sed onh i s fa i l u re to com p l y w i th t he c ondi t i ons of

hi s noni m m i gr ants t at us. A ddi t i onal l y, an am ended N TAw as m a ile dto M a r in g o o n J a n u a r y2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , s p e c ify in gh o w h e h a dfa ile dto m a in ta in t he c ondi t i ons of

hi s st udentvi sa . M ar i ngo fai l ed t o a p p ea ratt he M ar c h 23 r e m o v a l h e a r in ga n dw a s o r d e r e dre m o v e dto T a n z a n ia . Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

3 O n Dec e m be r1 5, 2 00 5, M ar i ngopl e ad e d g ui l t y i n di s t r i c t c o ur t t o m ak i ng a fal ses t at em enti n an appl i c at i on f or adj ust m ent of st at us and usi ng a vi sat hat h ad b een p ro c ur e d b y f r audi n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 54 6( a) . The c o urt s e n te n c e dM a r in g o to tim e s e rv e dfo rb o th o ffe n s e s . Su bs equent l y, i n M ar i ngo’ s pet it i on t o r eo pen t he r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs bef ore t h e IJ, M ari n go st ated t h at, on M arch 20, 200 6, a pro b o n o a ttor n ey i n f o r me dh i m h o w t o r e t r i e v e i n f o r ma t i o n r e g a r d i n gh i s p r o c e e d i n g s f r o m a s ys t em ru n b y t he Exe c ut iveO f f i c e o f I m m i gr at i o n Rev i e w . On M ar c h 2 3, he su cces sfully a cces s e d t h e sy stem . O n M a rch 31 , M a ri n go f i l eda m oti on to r e o p e n t h e i n s t a n t p r o c e e d i n g s , c l a i mi n g t h a t h e h a d n e v e r r e c e iv e d aNTA. O n M ay 8, t h e I J gran t ed the m ot i on t o reopen, st ati n gth a t t h e noti ces m ay n ot h ave been m ai l ed to M ari n go’ s c orrec tadd ress . O n M ay 19 , at an i n i t i alm aster c al endarhear i ng, t he I J c ont i nued t he c as e until M ay 25 t o a f f or d M ar i ngo an opp ort u n i t y t o sec u re c ou n sel . A tt h e M ay 25 hea ri n g, M ari n go, proceedi n g pro se, i n f orm ed the IJ t h at he w an t ed to reapp l y f or asyl u m . Th e I J then conti n u ed t he r em ovalpr oc ee di ng untilJu ne 15. At t he June 15 hear i ng, af t erM ar i ngo ad m i t t e d thathe di d no ta t t e nd Te xa s So ut he r n U nive r s i t y, t he I J f o und t hathe h a dfa ile dto c o m p lyw ith t h e c o n d itio n s o f h is s tu d e n t v is aa n dth u s fo u n dh im r e m o vabl e b y c l e ara nd c o nvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . Addit i o nall y, M ar i ngof i l e d a s upp l e m e nt ala ppli c at i o n f o ra s yl um a nd the I J s e tahe ar i ng o n t he a s yl um a p p lic a tio n fo rJ u ly1 7 . T h e IJ a ls o o r d e r e dM a r in g o to h a v e a ll d o c u m e n ts in s upp o r to f

t he a ppli c at i o n s ubm i t t e d b y July 7. The IJ con duc t e d the a s yl um he ar i ng o ve rs e ve r al da ys July 17 , July 20 , and Augus t 30 . O n D e c e m be r 4, t he I J deni ed M a ri n go ’ s appl i c at i on f oras yl um . The I J e xpr es sly f ound t hat M a r in g o w a s n o t a cr e d ib le w itn e s s . Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

4 M ari n go ap pea l ed the IJ’ s deci si on t o t h e B oard of I m m i grati on A pp eal s. T h e B o a rd af

f i rm ed the den i alof

t h e app l i cat i on f

or asyl u m , w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval , a nd p r o t e c t i o n und e rt he Conv e nt i o n Aga i ns tTo r t ur e . M ar i ngonow p e tit io n s th is C o u r t fo rre v ie w o f th e B IA ’ s d is m is s a l o f h is a p p e a l. I I . AN AL YSI S A . R em oval O rder M ar i ngo c ont ends t hatt he doc t r i ne o f res j udi c at a bar r ed the c harge s t hat resu l tedi n the rem ov a lord er. H e con ten d s th a t th e IN S h a dthe op p ortu n i ty to c hargehi m w i t h t he i nst antvi ol at i on i n t he prev i ous rem ovalpr oc ee di ngs t hat w er e t er m i nat ed i n hi s favor . M or e spe c i f i c al l y, h e arg ues that , du r i ng t he 2001 r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s , th e IN S co u ldh a v e c h a r g e dh im w ith fa ilu r e to co m p ly w ith h is s tu d e n t v is ab u t w a ite du n til 2 0 0 6 to b r in gth e in s ta n t c h a r g e . Th e do c t r i ne o f

r es j udi c at a c an be appl i ed i n an adj udi c at ory re m oval p r o c e e d in g . Me di nav. I NS, 993 F . 2d499 , 503 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) (h ol di n g t h at r es j u d i c at a bar r ed the depo r t at i on pr oc ee di ngs bec ause t he I N S pre vi ous l y had c o nc e de d the pe t i t i o ne r ’ s c i t i z e ns hi p) . H o w e ve r , t hi s Cour tha s r e f us e d t o f

i nd r e s j udi c at a ap pl i c ab l e i n ac as e a nal o gou s to the o ne a tb ar . I n Pet e rs v. A sh cr oft, P e te r s a r g u e dt h a t th e B IAw a s co lla te r a llye s to p p e dfr o m fin d in gh im rem ovab l e becau se it h ad previ ou sly determ i n ed th at h e h ad n ot been convi ct ed o f a na g g r a v a te dfe lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A)(iii). 3 8 3 F .3 d3 0 2 , 3 0 6 n .2 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) . W e r ej e c t e d thi s a r gum e ntb e c aus e t h e p en di ng pr o c e e di ng a g a in s t P e te r s w a s “b a s e do n aw h o l l ys e p a r a te p r o v is io n— 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)( 2 )( B )(i)— relati n g to p ri or d ru g-related off en ses . ” Id . W e t h eref ore c o nc l ude d that“t he BI A’ s pr i or d eci si o n ha [ d] no r e s j udi c at a e f fe c to n t he Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

5 cu rren t re m ov a lp roce ed i n g.” Id . L ik e w is e , inth e in s ta n t c a s e , th e cu r r e n t b a s is for M a ri n go ’ s rem ov a l

— fai l u re t o c o m p l y w i th the stu d en t vi sa req u i rem en ts purs uant t o 8U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( C ) (i)

— i s a s epar at e pr ovi si on f r om t he c harge i n t h e f i rstproceedi n g t h at h e w as an al i en rem ai n i n g i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates f or a tim e lo n g e r th an perm i t t ed i n vi ol ati on of 8 U . S . C . § 1227 ( a) ( 1) ( B ) . U n der th e s e cir c u m s ta n c e s , re s ju d ic a ta d o e s n o t a p p lyto p r e c lu d e M a r in g o ’ s re m o v a l. M a ri n go also a rg u es th a t he w a s i m p rop erly ch a rg edw i th rem ov a b i l i ty und er8 U . S. C . § 1227 be c ause he had gai ned ent r ance t o t he U ni t ed St at es by f r au d u l en tl y obt ai ni ng a vi sit orvi sa . I nst ead, he as se r t s t hathe s houl d have b e e n ch a r g e d u n d e rth e p r o v is io n th a t r e n d e r s a lie n s in a d m is s ib le d u e to h is ne ve rha vi ng be e n p rop er lyadm i t t e d. Thi s a r gum e nto ve r l o o ks t he fac tt hathe l aw f u l l y cha n gedh i s stat u s w h en h e ob t ai n ed h i s studen tv i sa. T h u s, h e ha s not sho w n t hati tw as i m pro pert o c hargehi m w i t h re m ovab i l i t y under§ 1227. M ari n go n ext contend s t h at hi s du e process ri gh t s w ere vi ol ated becau se t he I J di d notal l ow hi m 10 day s t o at t em pt t o se c ure t he s ervi c es of an at t or ney. T itle 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (b )(1 ) p r o v id e s th a t: I n o r de r t hat an ali e n be pe r m i t t e d t he o ppo r t uni t y t o sec u re coun selbef

ore th e f

i rsthea ri n g da t e i n proceed in g s u n der sect i on 122 9a of t h i s t i t l e, t h e h e a ri n g da t e shallnot be sc h edu l ed earl i er t han 10 da ys a f

t e rt he s e rvi c e o f

t he no t i ce to appe ar , unl e s s t he al i en requests i n w rit i n g an earl i er heari n g da t e. A s pre vi ous l y se tf or t h, M ar i ngo w as or der ed r em ove d i n abs ent i a. N onet hel es s, on M ay 8, he s ucc es sf ul l y r eo pened the r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs bec ause t he N TAappar ent l y had be en s entt o an i nco r r ec taddres s. O n M ay 19, th e IJ h e lda n in itia l ca le n d a rh e a r in ga n dco n tin u e dth e ca s e u n til M a y2 5 . M a r in g o cla im s th a t th e IJ s h o u ld n o t h a v e s e t th e h e a r in g o n M a y2 5 , o n lys ix Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

6 d a y s a fte rth e in i t i a l ca le n d a rh e a r in go n M a y1 9 . A s p r e v io u s lys e t fo r th , § 1229(b) ( 1) di r ec t s t hat “ t he hear i ng dat e shall not be sc hedul ed ear l i ert han 10 da ys a f t e rt he s e rvi c e o f

t he no t i c e t o a ppe ar . ” M ar i ngoha s a dm i t t e d thathe bec am e aw ar e of t he r em oval or deron M ar c h 23. Al so , he adm i t t ed thathe had be e n i n c o nt ac tw i t h apr o b o no a t t o r ne y. Fur t he r , alt ho ugh t he r e m o va lhe ar i ng c om m enc ed s i x days af t ert he c al endarhear i ng, i tw as c ont i nued un t i lJune 15, an d M ari ngodi d no to bt ai n c o uns e ldur i ng t hi s t i m e pe r i o d. U nde rt he se ci rcu m stan ces, M a ri n go h a s n ot s h ow n th a t h e w a s d ep rive dof th e op p ortu n i ty to o b ta in co u n s e l inv io la tio n o f h is d u e p r o c e s s rig h ts . Cf . Pri c hard- C i r iza v. I . N. S. , 97 8 F .2 d 2 1 8 , 22 2 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 2 ) (requ i ri n g a n ali en to de m on strate p r eju d ic e th a t im p lic a te s th e fu n d a m e n ta l fa ir n e s s o f th e p r o c e e d in gto o b ta in r e lie f b a s e du p o n ala c ko f r e p r e s e n ta tio n ).

B. Asy l um F in a lly , M a r in g o ch a lle n g e s th e d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n fo ra s y lu m . W e revi ew an I J’ s fa ctu alf i n di n gs f

or s u bstanti alevi den ce and w i l lnot r everse u n le s s th e e v id e n c e c o m p e ls aco n tr a r yfin d in g . S e eCh u n v . I NS , 40 F. 3d 76, 78 (5th C i r. 19 9 4 ). “W e ca n n ot su b stit u te o u rju d gm en t f or th a t of

the B IAor IJ w i t h res pect t o t h e cr edibi l i t y of t h e w i t n esses or u l t i m ate fact u al f i n di n gs based on cred ib i l i ty d eterm i n a ti on s. ” Id . (cit a tio n o m itt e d). W i t h res pect t o M ari n go’ s c redibi l ity, th e I J st ated t h at “ [ a] s [M ari n go] h i m sel f ack n ow l edg ed d u ri n g h i s heari n g on t h e m erit s, hi s past h i st ory of im m ig r a tio n fr a u dco m b in e dw ith am e d ic a l d ia g n o s is o f s u ffe r in gfrom pa ra n o id de l us i o ns a nd aud i t o r y hall uc i nat i o ns m ak e i tdif f i c ul tf o rt hi s Cour tt o a c c e pt h i s t est i m on y as t rue. ” T h e IJ n ot ed th at M ari n go “h as successf u l l y perpetrat ed f r aud s b o t h upo n t he U . S. co ns ul at e t hata ppr o ve d hi s B- 2 vi s a ap pl i c at i o n a nd Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/08/2010N o. 07- 60431

Assu ming arguendo that Maringo has adequ ately raise d a CAT claim before us, the 1 BIA’s decision is supported bysub stantial evidence, and the record does not co mpel a contrary conclusion. 7 h i s l aw school” i n T an zan i a. T h e I J al so deem ed i m pl au sibl e cer t ai n detai l s of M ar i ngo’ s st or y o f

bei ng det ai ned by gov er nm entagent s. Th e I J al sofound t hat M a r i ng o ’ s s t o r yo f

g o v e r nm e ntp e r s e c ut i o n was n o tc o r r o b o r a t e db yt he 2 0 05 D epa rt m en to f

St at eCoun t ry R eport on T an zan i a. A ccor di n gl y, t h e I J concl u ded t h a tMa r i n g o w a s n o tac r e d ib l e w i t n e s s a n d d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m. O u rre v ie w co n v in c e s u s th a t t h e IJ ’ s f in d in gth a t M a r in g o w a s n o t a cr e d ib le w i t n ess i s s u pp ort ed bysubstanti alevi den ce. T h e evi den ce c ert ai n l y does n ot c o m p e lt h e o p p o s ite fin d in g , i . e. th a t M a r in g o w a s acr e d ib le w itn e s s . W e t he r e f o r e a f f i r m t he BI A’ s de ni alo f a s yl um . 1 F o rt h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e B IA i s A F F I RMED. We GRANT M a r in g o ’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to file as u p p l e m e n t a l re p lyb r ie f o u t o f tim e . W e D E N Yan y rem ai n i n g ou t st an di n g m ot i on s. Case: 07-60431 Document: 00511022452 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/08/2010