2010 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 Third C ir c uit 6-2-2010 

# E rgu s H amit a

j v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3891

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " E rgus H amit a

j v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1215. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/12151 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- 3891

___________ E R G U S H A M ITA J, Pet i t i oner

v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

a n O rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 097 129 675 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

M ay26, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : Jun e 2 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

E r gus H ami t aj 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 ”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s appea l of an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) fi nal or der o f r e mo v a l . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. H a m itaj is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f A lb a n ia. H e e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in2

2003. H e w as char ged as att empt i ng t o ent erthr ough the vi s a w ai verpr ogr am w hen he w as notel i gi bl e t o do s o. H ami t aj conce ded thathe w as excl udabl e on thatbas i s , buthe a p p lied f o r a sy lu m a n d re late d re lief b a se d o n h is in v o lv e m e n t in A lb a n ia’ s D e m o c ra tic P a rtya n d its Y o u th F o ru m . T h e IJ f o u n d th a t H a m itaj w a s n o t cr e d ib le, a n d d e n ied a ll rel i ef. T he B IA fou nd that the IJ’ s adverse cr edibi l i tyfi nd i ng w as not cl earl yerr on eou s, th a t th e e x p e rt re p o rt H a m itaj su b m itt e d d id “ n o th in g to c u re th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fin d ing , ” a n d that H am it aj w as n o t prejud iced b yn o t r ec eivin g a sig n ed co p yo f th e IJ’s d e c is io n u n til th e d a te h is b ri e f w a s d u e , a s h e h a d re c e iv e d a n u n s ig n e d c o p ye a rl ie r. Ha mi t a j f 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. W e gene r al l yr evi ew onl yfi nal deci s i ons bythe B I A . L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , beca us e the B I A s ubs t ant i al l yr el i ed upon the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, w e r evi ew both the B I A ’ s and the I J ’ s deci s i ons w i th r egar d t o the cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 241- 42 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F . 3d 39 6, 40 5 (3d C i r. 20 03 ), and up ho l d fac tual det erm i nati on s, i ncludi ng adv ers e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs , i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T o r ever s e an a dver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, the evi dence of cr edi bi l i tym us tbe so stro n g “ th a t in a c iv il tria l [ th e a lien ] w o u ld b e e n tit led to ju d g m e n t o n th e c re d ib ili ty i s s ue as a mat t erof l aw . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e haveB eca us e H ami t aj fi l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on i n 2003, the R E A L I D A ct , eff ect i ve 1 M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , d o es n o t app lyto h is cl aim s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B ). 3 r ecogni zed thatan I J i s nor m al l yi n the bes tpos i t i on t o m ake a cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and i s “uni quel yqual i fi ed t o deci de w hetheran al i en’ s t es t i m onyhas abouti tthe r i ng of truth. ” A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 597 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng S a rv ia -Q u in ta n illa v . IN S , 7 6 7 F .2 d 1 3 8 7 , 1 3 9 5 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 )) .

W e conc l ude thatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on her e r es t s upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he I J pr ovi ded numer ous s peci fi c and c ogentr eas ons for c o n c lu d in g th a t H a m itaj la c k e d c re d ib ili ty , m a n yo f w h ich g o to th e “ h e a rt” o f h is claim s. S ee B erisha

j v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 8 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e B IA 1 part i cul ar l ynot ed that : ( 1) the dat e thatH ami t aj j oi ned the D emocr at i c Partyw as not c lea r; (2 ) o n e o f

th e tw o a ttac k s f

o rm in g th e b a sis o f

h is c laim w a s n o t in c lu d e d in h is in iti a l as y lu m a p p lica tio n ; (3 ) th e in iti a l ap p lica tio n d id n o t m e n tio n th a t a g u n w a s p u t to hi s head; and ( 4) i n gener al , H ami t aj ’ s m or e r ece nts t at ement( “the s econd s t at ement ”) w a s s e e n a s a n e m b e lli sh m e n t.

T h e B IA ’s f

irst sta ted re a so n f

o r u p h o ld in g th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g is r atherw eak. A l though H ami t aj ar gues thathe cons i s t ent l yt es t i fi ed thathe bec ame an act i vi s tof the “Y outh Forum of the D emocr at i c Party ” i n 1998 w hen he w as i n hi gh sc h o o l, an d th a t h e jo in e d th e f u ll p a rtyin 2 0 0 2 w h e n h e tu rn e d e ig h tee n , h is a ss e rtio n is bel i ed bythe r ecor d, as the G overnm entas ked hi m tw i ce w hen he be came a ful l m ember4

o f th e D e m o c ra tic P a rt y , a n d h e tw ic e a n s w e re d th a t h e d id s o in 1 9 9 8 . A .R . 1 9 5 . H o w ev er, he also ex p lai n ed that fo r him , the Y o u th F o rum an d the D em o cra ti c P artyw ere

“ l i k e th e s a m e . ” I d . H e m a y h a v e f e l tth a tj o i n i n g th e Y o u th F o ru m w a s “ f u l l p a r ty” m ember s hi p. N everthel es s , gi ven the documentH ami t aj s ubm i t t ed s t at i ng thathe j oi ned th e D e m o c ra tic P a rtyin O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 , an d g iv e n h is e x p lan a tio n th a t b e c a u se th e P a rty does nothave c om put er s , “they ’ l l j us tw r i t e anythi ng, ” A . R . 196; w e do notfee l c o m p e lled to o v e rtu rn th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g o n th is b a sis . S e e A n d e rso n v . C ity o f Be s s e me rCi ty , No r th Ca r o l i n a , 4 7 0 U. S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 4 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( “ [ w] h e r e th e r e a r e two p e rm iss ib le v iew s o f

th e e v id e n c e , the f

a c tf in d e r’s c h o ice b e tw e e n th e m c a n n o t b e c lea rly e rr o n e o u s ” ). T he B I A ’ s r emai ni ng r eas ons ar e r el at ed, as theyal l i nvol ve i ncons i s t enci es betw een H ami t aj ’ s s t at ementi n s uppor tof hi s i ni t i al as y l um appl i cat i on and the s econd s t at ement , w hi ch w as fi l ed atthe di r ect i on of an I J . I n hi s s econd s t at ement , H ami t aj sta ted th a t an a ttem p t w a s m a d e o n h is lif e in A p ril 2 0 0 2 , w h e n a n u n m a rk e d c a r trie d to strik e h im . A .R . 2 8 6 . T h e sta tem e n t sa y s th a t h e g o t a th re a ten in g a n o n ym o u s p h o n e c a ll a b o u t th e in c id e n t th a t n ig h t. Id . T h e A p ril 2 0 0 2 in c id e n t is n o t m e n tio n e d a t all in H ami t aj ’ s i ni t i al s t at ement . T he s econd s t at emental s o s et s forth i n harr ow i ng det ai l an i nci denti n O ct ober2002, w hen a man ( nottw o m en) poi nt ed a gun, “mer e i nches ” fr om h is h e a d (a n d e v e n p u lled th e trig g e r, b u t n o b u llet f ire d ), an d th re a ten e d h im to sto p h is pol i t i cal act i vi ty . A . R . 287. T he i ni t i al s t at ementr efe r ence s an i nci dent“[b] ythe end ofT he I J al s o not ed thatH ami t aj om i t t ed anym ent i on of havi ng r ece i ved thr eat eni ng 2 phone ca l l s i n hi s i ni t i al aff i davi t , and thatther e w as i ncons i s t enti nform at i on conce rni ng w hen H ami t aj ’ s fatherdi s appea r ed. A . R . 62- 63. 5 2002, ” w hi ch mi ghtr efe rt o the O ct ober , 2002 i nci dent , butthe des cr i pt i on s ay s thathe w a s s to p p e d a n d b ru tallyb e a ten b y“ tw o m a sk e d a n d a rm e d m a n [ sic ].” A .R . 3 5 8 . W h ile “[a ] n appl i cant ' s t es t i m onyi s notpers e l acki ng i n cr edi bi l i tys i m pl ybeca us e i ti ncl udes det ai l s thatar e nots etforth i n the as y l um appl i cat i on, ” s ee Cao v. A t t orneyG ener al , 407 F. 3d 146 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w e fi nd i tw as notunr eas onabl e forthe B I A t o bel i eve that H a m itaj w o u ld n o t lea v e su c h c o m p e lli n g , g ra p h ic d e tails o u t o f h is o rig in a l ap p lica tio n if theytrul yoccurr ed. See R eynos o- L opez v. A s hcr oft , 369 F. 3d 275, 279 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (l ater em b ell ishm en t of claim m aysu p p o rtad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing ). 2 T he B I A concl uded thatthe I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng w as di s pos i t i ve and r el i ed upon i tas the bas i s t o denyH ami t aj ’ s appea l . “A n al i en’ s cr edi bi l i ty , byi t s el f, m ays at i s fyhi s bur den, ordoom hi s cl ai m . ” D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 247 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c). I n this case , the a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination d o o m s H am it aj’s cl ai m . H ami t aj bor e the bur den of s uppor t i ng hi s as y l um cl ai m thr ough cr edi bl eH a m ita j s p e n d s m u c h o f

h is b ri e f a rg u in g th a t h is d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts w e re v io la te d . 3 A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, H a m itaj d id n o t ra ise a d u e p ro c e ss c laim in h is b rie f to th e B IA . W e th e re f

o re lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r w h e th e r H a m itaj’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w ere v iolated. 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ). H am it aj did arg u e in h is brief to th e B IA that the IJ ig n o re d m u c h o f

h is e v id e n c e . W e a g re e w ith th e B IA th a t th e e v id e n c e H a m itaj p o in ts to does notcompel r ever s al of the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. W e furthernot e thatH ami t aj ma d e n o s e p a r a t e a r g u me n tr e g a r d i n g h i s CA T c l a i m i n h i s b r i e f t o th e BI A, a n d we ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthatcl ai m as w el l . I d. I n anyevent , w e not e that ther e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d s uppor t i ng the not i on thatH ami t aj w oul d be i m pr i s oned i n A l bani a, m uch l es s thathe w oul d be t or tur ed i n pr i s on. See Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t32. 6 t es t i m ony . A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 482 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . H e fa i l ed t o m eetthat 3 b u rd e n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .