T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e Te n aCa mp b e l l , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orU t a h, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OH N PAU L GNO VEL, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71313 A ge nc yN o. A 076- 694- 156 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : O ’ S C A N N L A I N a nd T R O T T , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd C A M P B E L L , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** Jo h n P au l G n o v el p etit io n s f o r r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s af firm an ce o f th e I J’s deni al of w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and C on vent i on A gai nstT orture r el i ef . M r. 

# FI LED MA R 04 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

G nove l a l s o pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of

hi s m ot i ons t o r e m a nd a nd r e c o n s i d e r . Wh e r e , a s h e r e , th e B I A a d o p t s th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n a n da l s o a d d s i t s o wn r e a s o n s , b o th d e c is io n s a r e r e v ie w e d . N u ru v . G o n z a le s , 4 0 4 F .3 d1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2005) . Q ue s t i ons of l a w a r e r e vi e w e d de novo, butf a c tua l f i ndi ngs unde r l y i ng the agency’ s f

i nal order are re vi ew ed for s ub st ant i al evi dence. I d. R e vi e w i ng f or subst ant i al evi dence m eans the B IA ’ s f i nd i ng s m ustbe up hel d u nl es s the evi dence c o m p e ls ac o n tr a ryr e s u lt. I N S v . E lia s - Z a c a r ia s , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 - 8 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n . A . S cop e of R evi ew M r. G no vel ar gu es thatthe B IA subst i tut ed i t s ow n d i sposi t i ve fa ctual fi nd i ng s f

or tho se of the IJ , contraveni ng 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(d)(3)(i v), w hi ch st at es that“ the B oard w i l l no tengage i n fac t fi nd i ng i n the course of deci di ng appeal s. ” T hi s argum enti s w i tho utm er i t , because there i s no sub st ant i ve di ff er ence betw ee n th e f in d in g s o f

th e B I A a n d th e I J . T he B IA ’ s s t at em ent s r egar di ng apost as y par aphras ed the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng that M r . G n o v e l’s c la im e d ap o s ta s yw o u ldn o t b e e a s ilyo b s e rv e do rlik e lyto c au s e h im s e r i ous pr obl e m s . T he B I A a l s o f ound “ the one phy s i c a l a l t e r c a t i on de s c r i be d by the [P et i t i on er ] [i n] suff

i ci entt o est abl i sh pastpers ec ut i on . ” T he IJm ade an expl i ci tfi nd i ng thatM r. G no vel di d n otsuff erpastpers ec ut i on and w as there fore- 3-

no tent i t l ed t o a pres um pt i on of el i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al : “ H e a l so has no tprov en thathe experi ence d p as tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof any prot ec t ed gr ound w hi l e he w a s i n M a l a y s i a . ” T he B I A ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w e r e notne w f i ndi ngs of fa ctand d i d n otvi ol at e § 10 03 . 1(d)(3)(i v). B . W i th h ol d i n g o f R em ov al/ C on ven ti on A ga i n stT ortu re R el i ef T he B IA foun d that , despi t e havi ng conv ert ed back t o C atho l i ci sm , M r. G n o v e l w o u ldn o t b e c o n s id e r e d aM u s lim ap o s ta te u p o n r e tu rn to M a la y s ia . S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt ed the IJ ’ s and B IA ’ s c on cl usi on s, and the evi dence subm i tt ed by M r. G no vel do es no tcom pel a c on traryre sul t . M r. G no vel , as an e thni c I ndi a n, w oul d notbe pr e s um e d t o be aM us l i m . M r . G nove l ha s no d o c u m e n ts id e n tif

y in g h im a s aM u s lim , a n dp r e s e n te dn o e v id e n c e th a t a n y o n e in M al ay si a has such do cum ent s. M r. G no vel di d n otpres entevi dence thatC atho l i cs a r e g e n e r a llyp e r s e c u te d in M a la y s ia . I n M r . G n o v e l’s f a v o r , h e te s tif

ie dth a t a M u s lim o n c e c a m e lo o k in g f o rh im to s e e if

h e w a s s till p r a c tic in g I s la m , b u t th is i nc i de ntoc c urr e d ne a r l yf ourt e e n y e a r s a go. I ti s true tha tthos e w ho c onve rtf r om I s l a m i n M a l a y s i ac a n be tr e a t e d ha r s hl ya nd tha tr e gul a t i ons i n f or c e s i nc e 1999 r e qui r e a l l M us l i m s , both e thni c a nd c onve rt s , t o c a rryi de nt i f i c a t i on i ndi c a t i ng a dhe r e nc e t o I s l a m . T he I J ’ s a nd B I A ’ s c onc l us i ons , how e ve r , w e r e pr e m i s e d on- 4-

th e f a c t th a t th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t a n y o n e in M a la y s iaw o u ldb e ab le to id e n tif yM r . G n o v e l a s a n ap o s ta te . T urni ng t o the C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e , M r . G nove l ’ s a r gum e nt s a r e the sam e a s tho se pu tforw ar d i n sup po rtof w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al ; he w i l l fa ce to rtu r e a s a n ap o s ta te if

h e r e tu rn s to M a la y s ia . A g a in , M r . G n o v e l’s a r g u m e n t is c om pl e t e l yr e l i a nton the pr e s um pt i on tha the w i l l be tr e a t e d a s a n apos t a t e ; the po t ent i al l y har sh tre atm entof apost at es i s notdi sput ed. A s di sc usse d, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on thatM r. G no vel w ou l d n otbe tre at ed as an ap o s ta te u p o n h is r e tu rn , a n d th e e v id e n c e c ite db yM r . G n o v e l d o e s n o t c o m p e l a c ontr a ryc onc l us i on. C . M oti on s t o R em an d / R ec on si d er A m ot i on t o r e m a nd pr oc e e di ngs s ha l l notbe gr a nt e d unl e s s i tappe a r s t o the B I A th a t e v id e n c e s o u g h t to b e o f f e r e dis m a te r ia l a n dw a s n o t a v a ilab le a n dc o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n te da t th e f o rm e rh e a r in g . 8 C .F .R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1). T he B IA abuses i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tfa i l s t o o ff era r ea soned e xpl a na t i on f

ori t s de c i s i on, ordi s t ort s ordi s r e ga r ds i m port a nta s pe c t s of the al i en’ s c l ai m . K on st ant i no va v. IN S , 19 5 F . 3d 52 8, 52 9 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). T he B IA base d i t s deni al of M r. G no vel ’ s m ot i on on re as on s perm i tt ed un der § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1), and d i d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on . M r. G no vel soug htt o i ntrodu ce- 5-

si x n ew do cum ent s. T he B IA fi rs tst at ed thatM r. G no vel di d n ot“ dem on stra t e[ ] th a t th e e v id e n c e n o w s u b m itte d w a s p r e v io u s lyu n a v a ilab le , o rs u f f ic ie n tly m a t e r i a l s o a s t o w a rr a ntane w he a r i ng. ” T he B I A the n not e d tha tthr e e of the doc um e nt s pr e da t e d M r . G nove l ’ s he a r i ng, one w a s unda t e d, a nd tha ta tl e a s tone o th e rw a s n o t m a te r ia l. F or the sam e r ea sons, the B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng M r. G no vel ’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o rem and. S ee 8 C . F . R . §§ 10 03 . 2(a) -( b)(1). DE NI E D.