2009 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 4-20-2009 

# M ouh am a dou F all 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 . 08-4292

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_2009

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 2009 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 " M ouh am a dou F all v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1517. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1517NOT 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. 08- 4292

___________ M OU HA M AD OU M OU STAPHA FALL, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 073- 536- 067) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A ndr ew R . A r thur

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

A pr i l 17, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 20, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M ouhamadou M ous t apha Fal l pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons fors us pens i on of deport at i on, as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i efT he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatFal l fal s el ys t at ed thathi s pl ace of bi r th w as J acks on, 1 M is s is s ip p i. ( A .R . 5 6 8 .) 2 underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . Fal l , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Senegal , w as born i n D akar . H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on J anuary17, 1993, on an F- 1 s tudentvi s a, w hi ch author i zed hi m t o att end the U ni ver s i tyof N evada i n R eno, N evada . Fal l neveratt ended thatuni ver s i ty . Fal l fi l ed an i ni t i al appl i cat i on foras y l um on O ct ober30, 1994, w i th the hel p of a f r i end. O n J ul y25, 1995, the governm enti s s ued an O r dert o Show C aus e ( “O SC ”) and N ot i ce of H ear i ng char gi ng Fal l as bei ng a noni m m i gr antw ho fai l ed t o m ai nt ai n orcompl yw i th the c o n d i t i o n s o f

th e n o n i mm i g r a n ts t a tu s u n d e rwh i c h h e wa s a d mi t t e d u n d e rI NA § 2 4 1 (a )(1 )(C )(i) (1 9 9 5 ). F a ll n e v e r re c e iv e d th e O S C , an d th e c a se w a s a d m in istra tiv e ly c lo s e d . H e w a s n o t o rd e re d re m o v e d in a b s e n tia . O n M ar ch 30, 2007, Fal l w as convi ct ed of maki ng fal s e s t at ement s i n an appl i cat i on fora pas s por tand w as s ent ence d t o t i m e s erved. ( A . R . 573. ) Fal l s t at es t hat 1 he r ece i ved a r e- i s s ued O SC on J ul y17, 2007, w hi l e i n I C E cus t ody . Fal l conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed fors us pens i on fr om deport at i on, as y l um , w i thhol di ng and p ro te c tio n u n d e r C A T . A thi s m er i t s hear i ng, Fal l t es t i fi ed thathe i s of J ol a ethni ci ty . I n the 1980s , he a tten d e d a u n iv e rsityin S e n e g a l to stu d ym e d icin e . S tu d e n ts o f ten w e n t o n strik e to3

pr ot es tthe l ow s t i pends and over al l i nadequa t e condi t i ons . Fal l t es t i fi ed thathe w as a rr e s te d th re e tim e s d u ri n g s tu d e n t d e m o n s tr a tio n s in 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 8 8 , a n d 1 9 9 0 . O n the fi r s tocca s i on, Fal l w as arr es t ed al ong w i th others tudent s , hel d i n a pr i s on fora w eek, and ques t i oned. O n t he s econd oc cas i on, he w as agai n arr es t ed and de t ai ned fo r ab o u t a w ee k in f

il thyco n d it ion s. T h e C ri m inal Inv esti g ati o n s D ivisi o n (D IC ), c h a rg e d w ith in v e stig a tin g stu d e n t strik e lea d e rs, q u e stio n e d F a ll ab o u t h is e th n ic backgr ound and w hetherhe bel onged t o the M FD C , a C as amance s epar at i s tgr oup l ed by J o la s . F a ll to ld th e m th a t if a ll J o la s w e re d e e m e d s u p p o rt iv e o f M F D C , th e n h e w a s , to o . O n th e th ird o c c a sio n , F a ll w a s a g a in a rre ste d a lo n g w ith ten to tw e n tyo th e r stu d e n ts engage d i n a s tr i ke. H e w as j ai l ed fortw o w eeks and occ as i onal l ybl i ndfol ded and be at en w ith a ru b b e r c lu b . H is c a p to rs q u e stio n e d h im a b o u t h is m o tiv e s f o r strik in g , b u t F a ll ref u sed to an sw er. I n 1988, Fal l w as expel l ed fr om hi s m edi cal s tudi es , aft erw hi ch he c om pl et ed a d e g re e in E n g lish lit e ra tu re . F a ll t e stif ied th a t tw o o f

h is s iste rs a p p lied f

o r a sy lu m in I t al y , buthi s m otherr emai ns i n D akar . H e t es t i fi ed thathi s m otherhas notexper i ence d anypr obl ems s i nce hi s l as tarr es ti n 1990. H i s fatherpas s ed aw ayi n 1994. F a ll state d th a t h e f

e a rs th a t th e S e n e g a les e g o v e rn m e n t w ill p u n ish h im f o r h is pasti nv olvem ent i n the stud ent m ov em ent and h i s affi l i at i on w i th the M F D C separat i st g ro u p . H e a lso f

e a rs “ sp lin ter g ro u p s” w ith in th e M F D C th a t m a ytar g e t h im d u e to h is w e s te rn e d u c a tio n a n d h is d e s ir e n o t to p a rt ic ip a te in th e ira c tiv is m .4

T he I J deni ed al l r el i ef. T he I J det erm i ned thatFal l w as i nel i gi bl e fors us pens i on o f d ep o rt ati o n b ec au se h is co n v ict ion fo r m ak ing a f alse statem en t i n a p assp o rt appl i cat i on w as a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. T he I J al s o det erm i ned thatFal l had nott es t i fi ed cr edi bl yi n s uppor tof hi s as y l um , w i thhol di ng and C A T appl i cat i on, butt hat ev en if h e h ad , F all h ad fa il ed to m ee t his bu rde n o f p roo f o f p ast p erse cu ti o n . T h e IJ co n clud ed that F all h ad sim il arlyfa il ed to d em o n str ate a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, beca us e hi s m otherr emai ned i n Senegal unharm ed, and s pl i nt ergr oups w ith in th e M F D C w e re n o lo n g e r a t o d d s . T he B I A r ej ect ed hi s due pr oces s ar gum ent s and hi s chal l enge t o the I J ’ s deni al of su sp e n sio n o f

d e p o rta tio n . T h e B IA a lso a d o p ted a n d a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith r es pectt o as y l um , w i thhol di ng and C A T r el i ef a nd di s m i s s ed hi s appea l . Fal l pet i t i oned f o r r e v ie w . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l o f

th e BI A u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 1) . A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . “[W ] e r evi ew t he I J ’ s opi ni on t o the ext entthe B I A r el i ed upon i t . ” Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 119 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v ie w th e B IA ’s a n d IJ ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . B r i s eno- Fl or es v. A t t ’ yG en. , 492 F. 3d 226, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . O n appea l , Fal l r ai s es thr ee pr i nci pal ar gum ent s : ( 1) the governm enti m pr oper l yr e- i s s ued a 1995 O SC i n 2007, in v iolati o n o f d u e p roc ess; (2) h e is en ti tl ed to su sp en sion o f d ep o rt ati o n b ec au se th e IJ im p licitlyd e ter m in e d th a t h e w a s o f g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter ; an d (3 ) th e B IA e rro n e o u sly5

d e n ie d h is a p p lic a tio n s f o r a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g a n d C A T re lie f. F a ll’ s d u e p ro c e s s c la im la c k s m e ri t. T o p re v a il o n a d u e p ro c e s s c la im , a pet i t i onerm us ts how “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce. ” J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he i ni t i al char gi ng documentcont ai ned one c har ge: vi ol at i on of the c o n d iti o n s o f

n o n -im m ig ra n t sta tu s u n d e r IN A § 2 4 1 (a )(1 )(C )(i) (1 9 9 5 ). A lth o u g h F a ll neverr ece i ved the i ni t i al char gi ng documentatthe t i m e i tw as i s s ued, no act i on w as t aken a ttha tt i me, a nd hi s c a s e w a s a dmi ni s tr a t i ve l yc l os e d. The go ve rnmen tr e - i s s ue d the O SC i n J ul y2007, atw hi ch t i m e i tagai n char ged Fal l w i th noncompl i ance w i th the t erm s of h is no n -i m m igran t visa. A lth o u g h F all arg u es th at th is de lay ed re-issua n ce w as im p rop er, he d oes no tcon t estthat he had fai l ed to com plyw i th the t erm s of his no n-i m m i grantvis a nordoes he s ugges tthatthe fa ctof hi s noncompl i ance had cha nged i n the i nt erveni ng y ear s . T he B I A decl i ned t o addr es s Fal l ’ s conce rns r egar di ng the cha r gi ng documenton the bas i s thatthe governm enthas pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on, notr evi ew abl e bythe I J ort he B I A , t o i s s ue an O SC . W e conc l ude thatthe governm enthas the author i tyt o pur s ue r emoval on gr ounds pr evi ous l ychar ged, even though the pr ocee di ngs agai ns tthe pet i t i onerhad bee n admi ni s tr at i vel ycl os ed. See A r ca- Pi neda v. A t t ’ yG en. , 527 F. 3d 101, 104- 05 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( admi ni s tr at i ve cl os ur e does nott erm i nat e i m m i gr at i on p r o c e e d i n g s , b u tme r e l yr e mo v e s th e c a s e f r o m th e i mm i g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s c a l e n d a r ) . As Fal l w as nei theror der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a, nors uffe r ed anypr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the d e la y , h e h a s f

a ile d to ra is e a m e ri to ri o u s d u e p ro c e s s c la im .Fal l cont ends thatthe I J i m pl i ci t l ydet erm i ned thathe w as of good m or al char act er 2 beca us e he of

fer ed hi m vol unt arydepartur e, a r equi r ementof w hi ch i s thatthe pet i t i oner b e o f g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter . H o w e v e r, th e tra n sc rip ts re v e a l th a t th e IJ d id n o t ac tu a lly c o n s id e r p e titio n e r’ s m o ra l c h a ra c te r i n d e te rm in in g h is e lig ib ility f o r v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . T h e IJ, ho w ev er, did e x p li cit lyco n side r m o ral ch ara cter w h en ev alua ti n g p eti ti o n er’s c laim f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l an d d e ter m in e d th a t p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ictio n tain ted h is ch ara cter. T h ere fo re, w e f ind n o co n tr ad ict ion b etw ee n the IJ’s g ran t of v o lun tary d e p a rt u re a n d h is f

in d in g th a t F a ll w a s in e lig ib le f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. 6 W e s im ila rl yc o n c lu d e th a t F a ll’ s c la im f o r s u s p e n s io n o f

d e p o rt a tio n m u s t f

a il. T he B I A det erm i ned thatFal l w as i nel i gi bl e for“s us pens i on of deport at i on, ” a f or m of r el i ef thatw as r epea l ed bythe pas s age of I I R I R A and thatw as r epl ace d bycanc el l at i on of r emoval underI N A § 240A , eff ect i ve A pr i l 1, 1997. See H ernandez v. G onzal es , 437 F. 3d 341, 345 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( compar i ng s us pens i on of deport at i on and ca ncel l at i on of r emoval ) . Suspe ns i on of deport at i on r equi r ed, i n part , thatthe al i en demonstr at e thathe has been of

good m or al char act erdur i ng a r equi s i t e per i od of cont i nuous s t ayi n the U ni t ed St at es . H ernandez , 437 F. 3d at345. T he B I A det erm i ned thatFal l had not s at i s fi ed thi s r equi r ementbeca us e he ha d been c onvi ct ed of maki ng a fa l s e s t at ementi n a pas s por tappl i cat i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1542, and thatthi s w as a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m oral turpi tud e. M at t er of C orr ea-G arces , 20 I. & N . D ec. 45 1, 45 4 (B IA 19 92 ); see al so R od ri gu ez v. G on zal es, 45 1 F . 3d 60 , 61 (2d C i r. 20 06 ) ( ho l ding t hat 18 U . S . C . § 1 54 2 is a crim e inv o lving m o ral tu rpitu d e). A s this C o u rtlack s jurisdicti o n o v er a n IJ’s di s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i on r egar di ng m or al char act er , w e w i l l di s m i s s Fal l ’ s pet i t i on as t o the B I A ’ s rul i ng on s us pens i on of deport at i on. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ; s ee 27

M e n d e z -M o ra n c h e l v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e al s o det erm i ne thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s deci s i on t o deny F all asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al or relief u n d er C A T . T h e B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ thatFal l l acke d cr edi bi l i tybeca us e of i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s 1994 as y l um appl i cat i on and hi s t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ng, butthateven i f Fal l had t es t i fi ed cr edi bl y , he had fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. I n part i cul ar , Fal l di d nott es t i fythathe s uffe r ed anyextr eme har m thatw oul d cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. See W ong v. A t t ’ yG en. , 539 F. 3d 225, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( di s cus s i ng defi ni t i on of per s ecut i on) . H e di d nott es t i fythathe su f f e re d a n yse rio u s in

ju rie s, n o r th a t h e e v e r so u g h t m e d ica l h e lp a s a re su lt o f h is detent i on s. A ccordi ng l y , w e m ayno tdis turb t he B IA ’s con cl usi on regar ding past p e rs e c u tio n . W e a lso a g ree w ith the IJ a n d B IA that F all lack ed a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p e rse c u tio n . F a ll’s o w n tes tim o n yin d ica ted th a t h e h a d n o t ex p e rie n c e d a n ytro u b le w ith the Senaga l es e governm entdur i ng hi s l as tthr ee y ear s i n the country( 1990- 1993) , norhas hi s m other , w ho r emai ns i n D akar , exper i ence d tr oubl e i n r ece nty ear s . See Li e v. A sh c ro f t, 39 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ W ]h e n f a m ilym e m b e rs r e m a in in pet i t i oner ’ s nat i ve countr yw i thoutm eet i ng harm , and ther e i s no i ndi vi dual i zed s how i ng that p eti ti o n er w o u ld b e sin g led o u t fo r pe rsec u ti o n , the re aso n ab lene ss o f a p eti ti o n er’s w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n is d im in ish e d .”). A lth o u g h F a ll state s th a t h is s i s t er s have r ece i ved as y l um i n I t al y , he does nots t at e the bas es of thei rcl ai m s nor8

co n tend that the s tand ard s fo r asy lum in It alyan d the U n it ed S tat es a re c o m p ara b le. In l i ghtof hi s m other ’ s cont i nued exi s t ence i n D akar , unharm ed, as w el l as hi s abi l i tyt o l i ve i n Senegal fors ever al y ear s unharm ed, w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng futur e per s ecut i on. Fi nal l y , w e fi nd no err ori n the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef. A deni al of as y l um nece s s ar i l yr equi r es thatFal l ’ s cl ai m forw i thhol di ng be r ej ect ed as w el l . Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . Si m i l ar l y , the r ecor d does notcompel the conc l us i on thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatFal l w i l l s uffe r to rtu re if h e is n o t g ra n ted re lief. S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to denyFal l ’ s C A T cl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , t o the ext entthatw e have j ur i s di ct i on, w e w i l l deny F a l l ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.