2005 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 9-14-2005 

# Andru shk evich 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 . 04-3541

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Andr ushkevich v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 550. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/550NOT P RE CE DE NT I 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. 04- 3541

AL E NA VL ADI M I RO VNA AN DR US HKE VI CH , 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, * B O A R D O F I M M I G R A T I O N A PPE A L S of t he Execut i ve O ffi ce f orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew of the U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, R e sp o n d e n ts (C a p tio n a m e n d e d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 3 (c ), F e d . R . A p p . P .) * Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the 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 ( A 78 110 203) Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember12, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember14, 2005)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A l ena A ndrus hkevi ch, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of t he R epubl i c of Bel arus , pet i t i ons for r evi ew of the fi nal deci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng t he or derof the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) di r ect i ng pet i t i oner ’ s r emoval and deny i ng her cl ai m for asy l um , w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al , and prot ect i on un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T hi s cour thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . Fort he r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d o f th is cas e, w e r efe ronl yt o t hos e fa ct s t hatar e pert i nentt o ourdi s pos i t i on. A ndrus hkevi ch a rriv e d a t th e S a n Y sid ro , C a lifo rn ia P o rt o f E n tryo n D e c e m b e r 6 , 1 9 9 9 , b e a rin g n o v a lid entr ydocument . W hen the i m m i gr at i on i ns pect oras ked hert o s t at e hercountr yof c i t i z e n s h i p , An d ru s h k e v i c h r e s p o n d e d t h a ts h e wa s a Un i t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n . Th a ts a me day , s he w as i nt ervi ew ed byanotheri m m i gr at i on i ns pect orw ho t ook a s w or n s t at ement fr om herw i t h t he ai d of an i nt erpr et er . I n t he s t at ement , A ndrus hkevi ch cl ai m ed thather r el at i ves w oul d ki l l heri f s he r etur ned t o B el arus beca us e s he “l efta l otof debt s ” by bor r ow i ng m oneyfr om r el at i ves and fr i ends t o s ecur e pas s age t o t he U ni t ed St at es . I d. at 303. I n r es pons e t o a ques t i on, s he al s o s t at ed thatB el arus i an author i t i es w er e notaft er her . W hen as ked i f s he meantt o t el l t he i ns pect ors he w as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen w hen sh e sa id , “U .S ., ” sh e a n sw e re d , “Y e s.” Id . at 3 0 3 . T h e sta tem e n t als o b e a rs a C e rtific a teE ff ec ti v e M arc h 2 0 0 3 , the Im m igrati o n an d N atura l i zat i on 1 S e rv ice (“ IN S ” ) c e a se d to e x ist a s a n in d e p e n d e n t ag e n c yw ith in t he D epart m entof J us t i ce, and i t s funct i ons w er e tr ans ferr ed t o t he B ur eau of

C i t i ze ns hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces w i t hi n t he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y . T he B I A rem ai ns w i t hi n t he De p a r t me n t o f J u s t i c e . Ho me l a n d S e c u r i t y Ac t o f 2 0 0 2 , 6 U. S . C. §§ 271, 291. 3 of Tra ns l at i on, s i gned byt he tr ans l at or , at t es t i ng t hati tw as r ead ba ck t o A ndrus hkevi ch i n R ussi an, a l ang uag e she un derst and s. T w o w eeks aft erentr y , A ndrus hkevi ch, w ho w as t hen i n pr i s on, w as i nt ervi ew ed byanotheri m m i gr at i on offi cerw i t h herl aw y erpr es ent . She w as r el eas ed fr om cus t ody t w o w eeks t her eaf

t erand l eftC al i forni a forN ew J er s ey . T he I N S comm ence d r emoval 1 p ro c e e d in g s b yf

ili n g a N o tice to A p p e a r (“ N T A ” ), ch a rg in g A n d ru sh k e v ich a s re m o v a b le under8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) form i s r epr es ent i ng her s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen and un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (7) (A )( i )( I) for no tpo sses si ng vali d en t rydo cum ents . In Ja n u ary2 0 0 1 , A n d rush k ev ich c o n su lt ed a law y er in P h il ad elph ia. W h en the IJ as ked w hys he l etal m os ta y earel aps e bef or e s eeki ng a l aw y er , A ndrus hkevi ch r es ponded t hats he “ha d t o have t i m e t o getback t o [her ] s el f, r egai n [her ] composur e l i t er al l y . ” A pp. at155. O n J ul y17, 2001, A ndrus hkevi ch appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T , cla im in g p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f p o lit ica l o p in io n . A t a hear i ng befor e the I J begi nni ng on N ovember12, 2002, A ndrus hkevi ch t es t i fi ed thatt he i m m i gr at i on offi cerw ho i nt ervi ew ed herw as rude, fr i ght ened he r , and t ol d hert o s i gn t he4

st at em ent w i t ho ut r eading i tback t o h er. S he als o clai m ed thatshe l eftB el arus because author i t i es per s ecut ed herbas ed on herm ember s hi p i n Y oung G r om ada, a br anch of t he B el arus Peopl e’ s Fr ont , an oppos i t i on gr oup. An d ru s h k e v i c h t e s t i f

i e d t h a ta s a me mb e ro f Yo u n g Gr o ma d a , s h e a t t e n d e d s o me fi ft een de m ons t r at i ons , ci t i ng t hr ee i n par t i cul ari n s uppor tof herappl i cat i on. She cl ai m ed thatateac h of thes e thr ee de m ons t r at i ons s panni ng fr om J ul yt o O ct oberof 1999, s he w as arr es t ed, i nt err ogat ed, and bea t en. She cl ai m s t hatt her e w er e 10, 000 peopl e at one of thes e demonstr at i ons . She t es t i fi ed thatdes pi t e the thr eat s and abus e, s he neve r y i el ded t o h er i nterrogat ors. A ft ert he pr ot es ti n O ct ober , s he r ece i ved tw o s um m ons t o r epor tt o an i nves t i gat or . A l l egedl yfea r i ng forherl i fe a nd t hatof herpar ent s , A ndrus hkevi ch fl ed t h e c o u n t r y. I n addi t i on t o t hes e eve nt s , A ndrus hkevi ch cl ai m ed that“the pr es i dent ’ s peopl e” vi s i t ed hers even t i m es dur i ng t hats um m erand fa l l . I d. at185. T heyques t i oned her p a re n ts a b o u t h e r a c tiv iti e s, th re a ten e d to im p riso n h e r, se n d h e r to C h e rn o b y l, or e x e c u te herpar ent s i f s he di d nots uppor tt he St at e. O n cr os s exami nat i on, A ndrus hkevi ch w as as ked w hyheraff i davi tdi d not m ent i on thatherpar ent s ’ l i ves w er e thr eat ened ort hats he w as t hr eat ened w i t h for ced l aboratC hernoby l ; herans w erw as vague a nd unr es pons i ve. H ow ever , s he di d s ayt hat t he af fi davi tcont ai ned herent i r e s t or y , and thati tw as r ead ba ck t o heri n hernat i ve5

l anguage . W hen the I J as ked heri f s he cl ai m ed t o be a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, A ndrus hkevi ch admi t t ed ans w er i ng “y es ” w hen the off i ceras ked heri f s he meants he w as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, butr es ponded thats he meantt o s ays he w as headi ng t o t he U . S. , nott hats he w as a c iti z e n . A sk e d w h ysh e d id n o t tell th e in sp e c to r a b o u t b e in g p e rse c u ted , sh e c laim e d it w as b ec au se th e o ff

icer frigh tene d h er. T he I J al s o as ked herw hys he di d notfi l e heras y l um appl i cat i on w i t hi n a y earof herentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es , and A ndrus hkevi ch t ol d hi m thats he had t o under go a “r ehabi l i t at i on pr oces s . ” I d. at224. She t hen s t at ed thats he di d nothave e nough m oney t o hi r e an a t t or neyt o fi l e an a ppl i cat i on. A ndrus hkevi ch al s o pr ovi ded an e xper t , D r . Z aprudni k, t o t es t i fyi n s uppor tof her app l i cat i on . H e t old the IJ abou tt he h ars h co nd i t i on s i n B el arus for peop l e w ho op po se t he governm ent . D r . Z aprudni k di d notknow A ndrus hkevi ch, buts t at ed thathe bel i eved t he governm entw oul d keep a fi l e on herbas ed on w hathe r ead i n heraff i davi tand that he fe ar ed s he w oul d be arr es t ed i f s he w er e r etur ned. Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, t he I J deni ed al l cl ai m s forr el i ef a nd found A ndrus hkevi ch in c re d ib le a n d h e r a p p lica tio n f riv o lo u s. O n a p p e a l, th e B IA h e ld th a t th e IJ h a d e rre d in fin d ing that A n d rush k ev ich f il ed a f ri v o lou s asy lum ap p li ca ti o n , b u t agre ed w ith the IJ’s o t h e rd e t e r mi n a t i o n s . Th e BI A i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e rd e n y i n g p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m f o ra s y l u m, wi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rt h e CA T.6 II. W hen the B I A conduct s an i ndepende ntanal y s i s of the r ecor d, w e r evi ew onl yt he B I A deci s i on. E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . Factual det erm i nat i ons , s uch as an adve r s e fi ndi ng of cr edi bi l i t yora det erm i nat i on t hat A ndrus hkevi ch mi s r epr es ent ed her s el f as a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, ar e r evi ew ed undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ( s t andar d of r evi ew fordet erm i nat i ons of as y l um el i gi bi l i t y ) ; A t eka v. A s hcr oft , 384 F. 3d 954, 957 ( 8t h C i r . 2004) ( acc or di ng s ubs t ant i al evi dence r evi ew t o I J det erm i nat i on t hat A tek a m a d e a f

a lse c laim to U .S . citize n sh ip ). W e c a n re v e rse o n lyif a “ re a so 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 c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). H ow ever , a court“r evi ew s de novo the i s s ue of w hether[i thas ] j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne w h a t co n stitu tes e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s f o r a late f

iled a sy lu m p e tit io n .” T a rra w a lly v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III . T he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct( “I N A ”) pr ovi des t hat“[a ] nyal i en w ho fal s el yr epr es ent s , orhas fal s el yr epr es ent ed, hi m s el f orher s el f t o be a c i t i zen of t he U n ite d S ta te s f

o r a n yp u rp o s e o r b e n e f it” u n d e r a n yf

e d e ra l o r s ta te la w is in a d m is s ib le . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a)(6)(C )(i i) . A therentr yi nt ervi ew , A ndrus hkevi ch admi t t ed thats he cl ai m ed t o be a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. A tt he hea r i ng, s he di d notdenyt he s t at ement , butt hen expl ai ned thats he7

actual l ym eants he w ant ed t o go t o t he U ni t ed St at es , nott hats he w as a ci t i zen of t he U ni t ed St at es . W e nee d notdw el l on t hi s gr ound forr emovabi l i t ybeca us e, as t he Go v e r n me n tn o t e d , An d ru s h k e v i c h h a s c o n c e d e d t h a ts h e wa s r e mo v a b l e u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )(7 )(A )(i)(I) , en tryw ith o u t p o ss e ss io n o f v a lid e n tryd o c u m e n t, an iss u e sh e d id n o t ch a llen g e o n a p p e a l to th e B IA o r to th is c o u rt. I V. W e have gener al l ycouns el ed aga i ns tput t i ng t oo m uch w ei ghton i nfor m at i on obt ai ned fr om an i nt ervi ew conduct ed upon entr y . See, e. g. , Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 217- 18 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . H ow ever , i f the di s cr epanc i es betw een s uch an i nterview and l at er t est i m on ygo t o the heartof the cl ai m , t heycan sup po rtan ad verse cre d ibil ityfin d ing . X ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H er e, t he di s cr epanc i es go t o t he hea r tof the mat t er : w hetherornot An d ru s h k e v i c h wa s p e r s e c u t e d b yt h e Be l a ru s i a n g o v e r n me n t . I n h e re n t r yi n t e r v i e w, A ndrus hkevi ch notonl yfai l ed eve n t o m ent i on t hats he w as s eeki ng pol i t i cal as y l um , s he s peci fi cal l ys ai d t hatt he B el arus i an author i t i es w er e notaft erher . A tt he hea r i ng, s he cl ai m ed thatt he B el arus i an governm entw as aft erherand thats he w as per s ecut ed forher i nvol vementi n Y oung G r om ada. F u rth erm o re, un li k e p rev iou s ca ses w h ere this co u rtref u sed to co n side r en try i nt ervi ew s , A ndrus hkevi ch had the hel p of a tr ans l at or , w ho s i gned a c er t i fi cat e s ay i ng he r ead the documentback t o her . T he B I A r ej ect ed A ndrus hkevi ch’ s t es t i m onyt hats he8

w as s o fr i ght ened of

t he i m m i gr at i on offi cert hats he coul d noteven ment i on t hats he w as per s ecut ed eve n t hough t he off i cers peci fi cal l yt ol d hert hats he mi ghtnotgetanother c h a n c e t o t e l l h e rs t o r y. B eca us e the di s cr epanc i es betw een the entr yi nt ervi ew and hers ubs equent t es t i m onygo t o t he hea r tof A ndrus hkevi ch’ s cl ai m and the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed b ysp e c if ic c o g e n t re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA ’s a d v e rse f in d in g o f c re d ib ili tyis s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . V. T he B I A r ej ect ed pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um beca us e i tw as notfi l ed w ith in th e re q u ir e d o n e -ye a r p e ri o d f ro m a rr iv a l in th is c o u n tr y . 8 U .S .C . § 1158( a) ( 2) ( B ) . T he one- y eart i m e l i m i tt o fi l e as y l um appl i cat i ons can be w ai ved i f the A t t orneyG eneral determ i nes t hat an app l i cant has dem on strat ed ch ang ed cir cum st ances, o r e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s re la tin g to th e d e la yin f ilin g . 8 U .S .C . 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). S ig n if ic a n tly, C o n g re s s h a s e x p re s s ly re je c te d ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f s u c h d e te rm in a tio n s . See i d. at§ 1158( a) ( 3) ( “N o cour ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anydet erm i nat i on of t he A t t or neyG ener al underpar agr aph ( 2) . ”) . T hus , i n T arr aw al l y , w e j oi ned the Ei ght h, N i nt h, T enth and El eventh C i r cui t s i n hol di ng t hatw e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on over det erm i nat i ons m ade byt he A t t or neyG ener al under§ 1158( a) ( 2) . T he “l anguage of 8 U . S. C . § 1158( a) ( 3) cl ear l ydepr i ves us of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat an as y l um pet i t i on w as notfi l ed w i t hi n t he one y earl i m i t at i ons per i od, and thats uch9

p e r i o d wa s n o tt o l l e d b ye x t r a o r d i n a r yc i r c u ms t a n c e s . ” 3 3 8 F . 3 d a t1 8 5 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s d e n ia l o f A n d ru s h k e v ic h ’s a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n . H ow ever , hercl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T ar e not su b jec t to th is ju risd ictio n a l b a r, an d w e c o n sid e r th o se c laim s n e x t. V I. A ndrus hkevi ch w oul d be ent i t l ed t o w i t hhol di ng of r emoval onl yi f s he d e m o n stra ted a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyo f p e rse c u tio n if

sh e w e re re m o v e d . Z u b e d a v . A sh c ro f t, 333 F. 3d 463, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . Pr ot ect i on undert he C A T r equi r es an eve n gr eat er sh o w in g o f

p ro o f. T a rra w a lly , 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 7 . In lig h t o f th e B o a rd ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f in d in g , A n d ru s h k e v ic h h a s f a ile d to p ro v id e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h e r c la im s . C ount r yr epor t s al one w i l l notm ake up f ori ncr edi bl e t es t i m ony . See Tar r aw al l y , 338 F . 3 d at 18 8 (rejecti n g p eti ti o n ev en tho u g h stat e d ep artm en t r ep o rt s d esc ri b ed tortu re p ra c tice s b e c a u se tes tim o n yw a s in c re d ib le, a n d T a rra w a llyd id n o t o f f e r e v id e n c e o f

h is i nvol vementw i t h oppos i t i on gr oups ) . W e thus concl ude thatt he B I A pr oper l ydeni ed wi t h h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rt h e CA T. V II. F o rt h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yAn d ru s h k e v i c h ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.