2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-18-2007 

# B agagn an v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3216

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B agagn an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 49. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/49H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef Judge , U ni t ed S t at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3216

S AL AM E BA GAGNA N, 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 der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 79- 306- 936) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. A l bert o R i efkohl Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber10, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2007) OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Sal ame B agagna n pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) s uppl ement i ng and af fi r m i ng the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , w ho deni ed B agagna n’ s r eques t s foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he fi nal agenc yor derunder8 U . S. C . § 1252. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l deny B agagna n’ s pet i t i on. I. A s w e w ri t e for the p art i es, w e setforth o nlytho se fact s necessaryt o o ur anal y si s. B ag ag n an , a n ati v e a n d cit izen o f B u rkin a F aso , en tered the U n it ed S tat es o n a v isi tors v isa o n o r a b o u t A u g u st 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 . O n M a rc h 8 , 2 0 0 2 , B a g a g n a n w a s is su e d a N o tice to A ppear , char gi ng hi m as r emovabl e as an al i en w ho, byfr aud orw i l ful l ym i s r epr es ent i ng a m a te ri a l f

a c t, s e e k s to p ro c u re a v is a f o r a d m is s io n to th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 6 )( C )( i) . O n O ct ober16, 2002, B agagna n fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on w i th the I m m i gr at i on C our t . B agagna n conce ded r emovabi l i tybefor e an I J , buts t at ed hi s i nt entt o pur s ue an app l i cat i on for w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al and prot ect i on un der the C A T . B agag nan al so s t at ed hi s i nt ent i on t o appl yforas y l um , butw i thdr ew thi s appl i cat i on fol l ow i ng an offr ecor d cons ul t at i on w i th couns el . A ccor di ng t o B agagna n, he had r efus ed t o author i ze the ci r cumci s i on of hi s tw o daught er s , w ho l i ve i n B ur ki na Fas o, and as a r es ul t , hi s pat ernal3

uncl e had thr eat ened t o ki l l hi m . B agagna n al s o expl ai ned thathe had notfi l ed for as y l um pr i ort o O ct ober16, 2002, beca us e unt i l thatt i m e he ha d been marr i ed t o a U ni t ed S ta te s c itiz e n . B etw een hi s w r i t t en s t at ement s and hi s t es t i m ony , B agagna n’ s evi dence cont ai ned num er ous and s i gni fi cantdi s cr epanc i es . W hi l e B agagna n attr i but ed thes e t o tr ans l at i on erro rs, the IJ ide n ti fied them as in h ere n t con tr ad ict ion s tha t un d erm ined B ag ag n an ’s c re d ib ili ty . B a g a g n a n ’s o ra l tes tim o n yth a t h e w a s a sk e d to c irc u m c ise h is d a u g h ter s in 19 98 con fl i ct ed w i th h i s w ri t t en st at em ent that he w as fi rs tasked to ci rcum ci se hi s el dest d au g h ter i n 2 0 0 2 w h en sh e turn ed sev en . A d d it ion all y , the IJ d eterm ined that B ag ag n an ’s fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n w as b eli ed b ythe f ac t th at he li v ed in the U n it ed S tat es f o r th ree y ea rs befor e appl y i ng foras y l um . Fi nal l y , the I J found thatB agagna n fai l ed t o pr es ent corr obor at i ng evi dence thatB ur ki na Fas o gr ant s t o father s the author i tyt o r efus e t o al l ow thei rdaught er s t o be ci r cumci s ed, orthatfather s w oul d be harm ed fors uch r efus al . For thes e r eas ons , the I J m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, fi ndi ng thatB agagna n had pr ovi ded i ncr edi bl e and unc orr obor at ed t es t i m ony . A ccor di ngl y , the I J deni ed B agag nan ’s request s. T he B I A di s m i s s ed B agagna n’ s appea l , adopt i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on and pr ovi di ng fur theranal y s i s i n s uppor tof di s m i s s al . T he B oar d al s o found thatB agagna n had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h t hathe had f i l ed foras y l um w i thi n one y earof arr i val i n the U ni t ed St at es , or th a t h e q u a lif

ie d f o r a n e x c e p tio n to th e f

ilin g d e a d lin e .4 II. W e r evi ew the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatB agagna n’ s cl ai m s w er e notcr edi bl e under th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . S e e G a o v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). U nderthi s s t andar d, w e uphol d t he age ncy ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons , “unl es s any re a s o n a b le a d

ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). I n thi s cas e, the B oar d adopt ed the I J ’ s deci s i on, and s uppl ement ed i tw i th fur ther anal y s i s . T hus w e w i l l r evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on, as w el l as the B oar d’ s . See W ang v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 2 3 F . 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . B agagna n cont ends thatthe I J err ed i n deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rC A T , and thatthe B oar d abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byaff i r m i ng t hat d ec isi o n . T h e re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rtB ag ag n an ’s ch all en g e. A t th e h ea rto f B ag ag n an ’s s t oryi s the al l eged r eques tthatB agagna n al l ow the ci r cumci s i on of hi s daught er s , and the al l eged thr eat s thatfol l ow ed hi s r efus al t o do s o. I ti s ther efor e s i gni fi cant , as w e not ed, th a t B a g a g n a n p ro v id e d in c o n sis ten t tes tim o n yre g a rd in g th e d a te o f th is re q u e st. In h is w r i t t en s t at ement , B agagna n s t at ed thatthi s r eques toccurr ed w hen hi s el des tdaught er w a s s e v e n , b u t th a t w a s in 2 0 0 2 , a t w h ic h tim e B a g a g n a n w a s liv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s . Si m i l ar l y , al though B agagna n t es t i fi ed thathi s uncl e al l egedl ythr eat ened t o ki l l hi m , he so m e h o w f

a iled to m e n tio n th is c ritica l issu e in h is w ritten sta tem e n t. B a g a g n a n a ss e rts thatthes e gaps and di s cr epanc i es w er e ca us ed byhi s tr ans l at or , as w el l as hi s poor5

r ecol l ect i on of dat es . I ts tr ai ns cr edi bi l i tyt o attr i but e a f our - y ear , cont i nent - s panni ng d is c re p a n c yto c o m m u n ic a tio n e rr o r, m u c h le s s th e w o rk in g s o f a f a u lty m e m o ry. M o re o v e r, as B a g a g n a n ’s w ritten sta tem e n ts w e re p re p a re d w ith th e h e lp o f c o u n se l, i t is even l es s l i kel ythatan i nt egr al i s s ue–the al l eged thr eat s m ade byB agagna n’ s pat ernal u n c le

– w o u ld b e o m itte d f ro m h is w ri tte n s ta te m e n t a lto g e th e r. In a n ye v e n t, ev e n if

B a g a g n a n ’s te stim o n yw e re c re d ib le, it d o e s n o t f o llo w th a t it w as s uffi ci entt o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. See O bal e v. A t t orneyG ener al , 453 F. 3d 151, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 553 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A l though p erse cu ti o n m ayb e p rov en b ytest im o n yalon e, “the B IA m ayso m eti m es re q u ir e otherw i s e- cr edi bl e appl i cant s t o s uppl ycorr obor at i ng evi dence t o m eetthei rbur den of p ro o f.” A b d u la i, 2 3 9 F .3 d a t 5 5 4 . B a g a g n a n f

a iled to p ro v id e e v id e n c e th a t co rro b o ra tes h is c laim th a t f a th e rs in B u rk in o F a so – let a lo n e f a th e rs w h o a re n o t m e m b e rs o f th e f a m ilyc irc le– c a n re f

u se to al l ow thei rdaught er s t o be ci r cumci s ed, nordi d he s ubs t ant i at e hi s cl ai m thatthr eat s ar e a cons equenc e of s uch r efus al s . T hes e i s s ues ar e cr i t i cal t o B agagna n’ s cl ai m s , and he w as gi ven not i ce of

thi s fac tbythe I J . N onethel es s , i n hi s appea l t o the B oar d, B agagna n fai l ed t o come for w ar d w i th s uch evi dence orexpl ai n i t s unavai l abi l i ty . A ccor di ngl y , t he r ecor d does notcompel r ever s al of the age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i ons . Si m i l ar l y , w e al s o r ej ect B agagna n’ s ar gum entthatthe B oar d fai l ed t o eval uat e pr oper l yhi s evi dence and thus vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . R ather , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe B oar d’ s deci s i on w as6

s uppor t ed bya cons t i tut i onal l ys uffi ci entanal y s i s , w hi ch appl i ed the appl i cabl e l aw t o t he p r o f f e r e d f a c t s . T h u s , we wi l l d e n yBa g a g n a n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.