2008 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 11-19-2008 

# Kalou D rame 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 . 08-1176

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_2008

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 2008 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 " K alou Dr ame v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 208. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/208NOT 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- 1176

___________ KA LOU DR AM E, A ppel l ant 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 79 728 769) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d V i ncen tF erl i se Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , ST A PL E T O N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember19, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM K a lo u D ra m e , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f M a li, w a s c h a rg e d w ith re m o v a b ili ty p u r s u a n tt o I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 6 )( A )( i) ], a s a n a lie n p re s e n t in th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t a d m is s io n o r p a ro le .D r ame pl ed gui l tyt o att empt ed entrybyw i l l ful l ym aki ng a fa l s e mi s r epr es ent at i on of 1 ma t e r i a l f

a c t , s e e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 7 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1325( a) ( 3) ] , aft erhe pr es ent ed a f al s e C anadi an pas s por tt o U ni t ed St at es bor der off i ci al s. B ec au se D ram e h ad n o t pu rsue d asy lum , the B IA v ac ated that p o rt ion o f th e IJ’s 2 deci s i on w hi ch found thatD r ame’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as fr i vol ous . Fur therm or e, the B IA d id n o t sp e c if

ica llya d o p t th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t D ra m e ’s e x p e rie n c e s d id n o t rise to 

### 2 D r ame concede d the cha r ge of r emovabi l i tybuts oughtw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . I n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m forr el i ef, D r ame t es t i fi ed thathe and hi s fami l yw er e fa r m er s and mem ber s of the Soni nke tr i be. A di s put e ar os e w hen Ful ani tr i bes m en al l ow ed thei rani m al s t o go o n to D ram e’s lan d an d d am ag e h is crop s. U lt im ately , F u lani sh ep h erd s k il led D ram e’s f a th e r; d u ri n g th e s a m e a lte rc a tio n th e s h e p h e rd s b e a t D ra m e w ith s tic k s a n d m a c h e te s . D ra m e f led to h is u n c le’ s h o m e , w h e re h e sta y e d f o r th re e w e e k s b e f

o re tra v e lin g to C anada . Fol l ow i ng an i ni t i al uns ucce s s ful att empt t o s eek a dm i s s i on t o the U ni t ed St at es in 1 9 9 5 , D ra m e e n te re d th is c o u n tr yf ro m C a n a d a w ith o u t in s p e c tio n in J u ly 1 9 9 8 . 1 T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) found thatD r ame w as notcr edi bl e bec aus e of di s cr epanc i es betw een hi s t es t i m onyand hi s aff i davi tconce rni ng the ci r cumst ance s su rro u n d in g h is f

a th e r’s d e a th a n d h is trip to h is u n c le’ s h o u se . T h e IJ in d ica ted th a t, even a s s um i ng thatD r ame w as cr edi bl e, he w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef be caus e the in c id e n ts h e d e sc rib e d d id n o t am o u n t to p e rse c u tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , the IJ d e n ied a ll rel i ef. T he B oard of

Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( “B IA ”) adop t ed an d aff i rm ed the I J’ s adverse c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s . D ra m e p e titio n e d f o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . 2the l evel of per s ecut i on.

A tone poi nt , how ever , D r ame as s ert s that“[o] therthan the i ncons i s t enci es betw een 3 [hi s ] t es t i m onyand the af fi davi t , al l otherdi s cr epanc i es w er e mi nor . ” D r ame i s r efe rr i ng to a n in c o n sis ten c yc o n c e rn in g th e tim in g o f h is trip to h is u n c le’ s h o u se f o llo w in g h is father ’ s m ur der . D r ame t es t i fi ed thataft erhi s father ’ s bur i al he “l eftthe vi l l age the next d a y .” H e late r sta ted th a t h e h a d a lre a d ylef t h is h o m e w h e n th e F u lan i ca m e to d e stro yit th e sa m e d a yth e yk ill e d h is f a th e r. D ra m e ’s a f

f id a v it i n d ica ted th a t h e w e n t to h is u n c le’ s h o m e a f

ter b e in g th re a ten e d w ith e v ictio n f ro m h is h o m e “ a f

e w d a y s a f

ter [ h is father ’ s ] bur i al . ” To accountforthes e di s cr epanc i es , D r ame expl ai ned that“[t ] o tr avel b e tw e e n o u r v ill a g e to [ th e to w n w h e re h is u n c le liv e d ] is n o t a o n e d a ytrip .” It is pos s i bl e thatD r ame l efthi s hous e the dayhi s fatherw as ki l l ed, butdi d notl eave the vi l l age unt i l the nextday . N everthel es s , D r ame’ s expl anat i on does notacc ountforthe sta tem e n t in h is a f

f id a v it ab o u t lea v in g a “ f e w d a y s” a f

ter th e b u ria l. C o n tra ryto D ra m e ’s b e lief

, the a m o u n t o f

tim e h e w a ited b e f

o re lea v in g is re lev a n t b e c a u se it ref lec ts th e d e g re e to w h ic h h e f e a re d f o r h is s a f e ty. A cl ai m i s “ava i l abl e as of r i ght ” i f “( 1) the al i en’ s cl ai m w as w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on 4 o f th e B IA to c o n sid e r a n d im p lica ted a g e n c ye x p e rtise , an d (2 ) th e a g e n c yw a s c a p a b le (c o n tin u e d ...) 

### 3 D ram e rai ses tw o clai m s on ap peal, neither of w hich di rect l ychall eng e the ad verse credi bil i tydeterm i nati on s. F i rs t , D ram e al l eges t hat the IJ vi olat ed h i s due p rocess 3 r i ght s . H e conc edes that“gr os s i ncons i s t enci es w er e found be tw een [ hi s ] t es t i m onyand the af fi davi tthatw as pr epar ed pr i ort o the hea r i ng, ” butas s ert s thatthe I J “s houl d have inq u ir ed as to w h at l ed to th[ ese ] discre p an cies.” Ins tead , ac co rdin g to D ram e, th e IJ “p rev en ted th e re co rd f

rom b eing p rop erlyd ev elop ed , ” f ail ed “to g ive a n yw eigh t t o M r. D r ame’ s s t at ement s conce rni ng hi s l i m i t ed educ at i onal backgr ound, ” and “ has t i l yent er ed a dec i s i on agai ns thi m . ” J udi ci al r evi ew of fi nal or der s of r emoval i s avai l abl e onl yi f the al i en has e x h a u s t e d a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s a v a i l a b l e “ a s o f r i g h t . ” I NA § 2 4 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) [ 8 U. S . C.

4( . . . cont i nued) 4 of gr ant i ng the r emedys oughtbythe al i en. ” B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 442, 447 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 

### 4 § 1252( d) ( 1) ] . “To exhaus ta cl ai m befor e the age ncy , an appl i cantm us tfi r s tr ai s e the i s s ue bef or e the B I A orI J . . . s o as t o gi ve i t‘ the opportuni tyt o r es ol ve a c ontr over s yor corr ecti t s ow n err or s befor e j udi ci al i nt ervent i on. ’ ” B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , 414 F. 3d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c itin g Z a ra v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 3 F .3 d 9 2 7 , 9 3 1 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . “[S] o l ong as an i m m i gr antpet i t i onerm akes s om e ef fort , how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace th e B o a rd o n n o tice o f

a stra ig h tf

o rw a rd iss u e b e in g ra ise d o n a p p e a l, a p e tit io n e r is deemed t o have e xhaus t ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” Y an Lan W u v. A s hcr oft , 393 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ing B h iski v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 3 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 -68 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )). T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t D ra m e f a iled to e x h a u st h is d u e p ro c e ss c laim . It i s cl earthatD r ame di d notr ai s e thi s cl ai m i n hi s N ot i ce of A ppeal t o the B I A ori n hi s br i ef fi l ed i n s uppor tof the N ot i ce of A ppeal . See Y an Lan W u, 393 F. 3d at422. W hen a pet i t i oneradvanc es a due pr oces s cl ai m , how ever , exhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es m aynotbe r equi r ed bec aus e the B I A gener al l yl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o hearcons t i tut i onal chall eng es. S ee S ew ak v . IN S , 90 0 F . 2d 66 7, 67 0 (3d C i r. 19 90 ). B ut a due p rocess c laim a lleg in g a n e rro r th a t is c o rre c tab le th ro u g h th e a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e ss is s u b jec t to the exha us t i on r equi r ement . See K han v. A t t orneyG ener al , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “[B]e caus e thi s cl ai m , s tr i pped of i t s ‘ due pr oces s ’ l abel , i s a cl ai m of

### 5

pr ocedur al err orthatcoul d have be en addr es s ed bythe B I A on appea l , the r equi r ement th a t [ th e p e tit io n e r] e x h a u st re m e d ies a p p lies .”). D ra m e ’s c o m p lain t ab o u t th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e IJ c o n d u c ted th e h e a rin g is e ss e n tiallya p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim . It i s cl earthe B I A had the abi l i tyt o hear , adj udi cat e, and r emand t hi s cl ai m . See B onhom etr e, 414 F. 3d at448 ( hol di ng that“i ti s bey ond debat e that , had the B I A concl uded thatthe IJ’ s c o n d u c t d u rin g th e im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g d id n o t f u lf ill h is o b lig a tio n to c o m p lete ly devel op the r ecor d underthe i m m i gr at i on r egul at i ons , i tcoul d have r emanded fora new tr ial . ”). T h u s, D ram e’s f ail u re to p rese n t his pro ce d u ral du e p roc ess c lai m s to the B o ard re n d e rs th e m u n e x h a u s te d . In h is s e c o n d c laim , D ra m e a ss e rts th a t th e IJ a n d th e B IA e rre d in d e n y in g h is appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde rthe C A T . T he C A T pr event s the U ni t ed St at es governm ent f r o m r e mo v i n g a n a l i e n t o a c o u n trywh e r e t o r tu r e wi l l o c c u r . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 208. 16( d) ( 1) . T he t or tur e mustbe “i nfl i ct ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entoracqui es cenc e of” an off i ci al per s on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 18( a) ( 1) . I ti s the a p p lica n t’s b u rd e n to e sta b lish “ th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” th a t h e w ill b e to rtu re d if r emoved. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . T he appl i cantm us tm eetthi s bur den w i th obj ect i ve evi dence . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 175 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he deni al of r el i ef unde rthe C A T i s r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence t es t . See Zubeda v. A s h c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W h ile D ra m e is c o rre c t th a t an a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily

### 6

p rec lud e re li ef

u n d er the C A T , id. at4 7 6 -77 , h e h as f ail ed to d em o n str ate tha t he is m o re l i kel ythan nott o be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o M al i . H i s cont ent i on thatFul ani s hepher ds w ill “ c o n tin u e to p u rsu e h im a n d k ill h im w ith o u t an yin ter v e n tio n f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t” i s pur el ys pecul at i ve. T he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence thatany one i n the M al i an g o v ern m en t, o r ac ti n g w ith it s ac q u iesce n ce , see k s to torture D ram e. T h ere fo re, th e B IA pr oper l ydeni ed D r ame’ s C A T cl ai m . See Tarr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 187- 88 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , 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.