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 Thir d C ir c uit 3-16-2010 

# D i alingan a 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 . 08-2642

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Di al in gan a v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1718. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1718W h ile th e o f f icia l ca p tio n id e n tifie s p e tit io n e r a s “ D ialin g a n a ,” w e w ill re f e r to h im 1 as “ D ial u n g an a” p er h is r eq u est i n h is sup p lem en tal o p en ing b ri ef. (A p p ell an t’ s S u p p . B r. a t 2 .) 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. 08- 2642

___________ KI ANGAN A DI AL I NGANA , Pet i t i oner vs. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng

( A gencyN o. A 79- 712- 491)

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

Sept ember24, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 16, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

P e tit io n e r K ian g a n a D ialu n g a n a , a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f th e D e m o c ra tic 1 R epubl i c of Congo, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”)2

or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyhi s pet i t i on.

D ialu n g a n a e n ter e d th e c o u n tryin D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 a s a six tee n -y e a r-o ld s t ow aw ayand the I N S arr es t ed hi m atthe porti n N ew O r l eans . D i al ungana f i l ed for asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d p rotec ti o n u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) . B efor e the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) he t es t i fi ed thathe fl ed the C ongo aft erhe acc i dent al l yki l l ed tw o pol i ce of fi cer s dur i ng a dr i vi ng l es s on. A ft erD i al ungana a rr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es , he l earned fr om hi s m otherthatthe pol i ce c ame t o hi s hous e and s hot ati tunt i l i tcol l aps ed, s hoot i ng hi s ei ght - y ear - ol d br otheri n the pr oces s . H e al s o t es t i fi ed th a t th e p o lic e w e n t to th e h o s p ita l a n d s e v e re ly b e a t h is ill f a th e r, w h o d ie d th e n e x t d a y . T h e I J , d e n y i n g a l l f

o r ms o f r e l i e f , f o u n d Di a l u n g a n a n o tc r e d i b l e . ( A. R. 1 3 8 - 1 4 0 . ) On February27, 2004, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed the appe al . ( I d. at 1 0 4 .) D ialu n g a n a d id n o t se e k a p e tit io n f o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. O n M ar ch 17, 2008, D i al ungana f i l ed a mot i on t o r eopen hi s r emoval p ro c e e d in g s a lle g in g c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s in C o n g o a n d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. T h e B IA , fin d ing that D ial u n g an a o ff ere d o n lyg en era li ze d ev iden ce o f c o u n try c o n d iti o n s a n d n o t sp e c if ic e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e lik e lih o o d th a t h e w o u ld b e su b jec t to p e rse c u tio n in th e C o n g o , d e n ied th e m o tio n . (Id . at 2 -3 .) D ialu n g a n a f iled a tim e ly p e titio n f o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt c h a lle n g in g th e B IA ’s o rd e r.

W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r evi ew the deni al of aD i al ungana doe s notr ai s e anyar gum ent s r egar di ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el 2 i n hi s openi ng br i ef. A ccor di ngl y , thi s cl ai m i s w ai ved. Si ngh v. G onzal es , 406 F. 3d 191, 1 9 6 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 3 m o ti o n to reo p en fo r an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . F il ja v. G o n za les, 4 4 7 F . 3 d 2 4 1 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . U n d e rth i s s t a n d a r d , w e m a y r e v e r s e th e B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n o n l y i f i ti s “ a rb i tr a ry, ir ra tio n a l, o r c o n tr a ry to la w .” S e v o ia n v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e w i l l uphol d the B I A ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons s o l ong as “theyar e ‘ s uppor t ed by rea so n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd a s a w h o le. ’” L iu v . A tt ’y G en. , 555 F. 3d 145, 148 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 (1 9 9 2 )) . M ot i ons t o r eopen a r e gene r al l yr equi r ed t o be fi l ed w i th the B I A “no l at er than 90 day s aft erthe dat e on w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on w as r ender ed. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) . T he dea dl i ne does notappl yt o m ot i ons thatr el yon evi dence of

“ c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s a risin g in th e c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . if s u c h e v id e n c e is m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed orpr es ent ed atthe pr evi ous hear i ng. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) . H er e, D i al ungana di d notfi l e the mot i on t o r eopen w i thi n t he 90- dayw i ndow ; ther efor e, he musts how change d countrycondi t i ons in th e C o n g o in o rd e r t o e x c u s e th e u n tim e lin e s s .

D i al ungana f

ocus es hi s ar gum enton hi s el i gi bi l i tyforpr ot ect i on undert he C A T . S pecifi cal l y , D i al un gan a chall eng es the B IA ’s rel i ance o n the I J’ s adverse

2 cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n deny i ng hi s C A T cl ai m and hi s m ot i on t o r eopen. A s the4

G overnm entpoi nt s out , how ever , the B I A di d notbas e i t s deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen on the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, butr atheron D i al ungana’ s fai l ur e t o pr es entany e v id e n c e th a t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d in lig h t o f th e c h a n g e d c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s. In o rd e r to b e e lig ib le f

o r re o p e n in g , D ialu n g a n a w a s re q u ire d to sh o w th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le l i kel i hood thathe i s ent i t l ed t o C A T r el i ef. See Shar darv. A t t ’ yG en. , 503 F. 3d 308, 313 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W hi l e D i al ungana de vot ed much of hi s m ot i on t o ar gui ng det er i or at i ng countrycondi t i ons i n the C ongo, he di d notar gue how thos e condi t i ons aff ectthe l i kel i hood thathe w oul d be t or tur ed by , oratthe acqui es cenc e of, the C ongol es e governm ent . See, e. g. , Si l va- R engi fo v. A t t ’ yG en. , 473 F. 3d 58, 64 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( an appl i cantforr el i ef on the mer i t s underthe C A T bear s t he b u rd e n o f

e sta b lish in g th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if r emoved t o the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval ) . I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, D i al ungana poi nt s t o t he 2006 St at e D epart m entC ountr yR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces i n C ongo w hi ch s t at es thats ecur i tyfor ces i n t he C ongo “[a r e] poor l ytr ai ned, poor l ypai d, undi s ci pl i ned, and c o m m itt e d n u m e ro u s h u m a n rig h ts a b u se s w ith im p u n ity .” (A .R . at 4 8 .) T h is s tate m e n t, w hi l e demonstr at i ng gener al l ydepl or abl e pol i ce pr act i ces , does nothi ng t o s how that D i al ungana w oul d be s i ngl ed outfort or tur e i f r emoved t o the C ongo. T her efor e, w e do n o t f in d th a t th e B IA a b u s e d its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g D ia lu n g a n a ’s m o tio n to re o p e n . Fur ther , t o t he ext entthatD i al ungana a r gues thatthe B I A err ed i n i t s February2004 deci s i on, thos e cl ai m s ar e notpr oper l ybefor e thi s C our t . See K aurv. B d. of I m m i gr at i onO n Sept ember15, 2009, D i al ungana f i l ed a mot i on w hi ch w e cons trued as a mot i on 3 t o s t ayhi s pet i t i on forr evi ew unt i l the B I A rul ed on a mot i on t o r eopen he fi l ed on Sept ember14, 2009. W e gr ant ed the mot i on pendi ng the B I A ’ s rul i ng. T he B I A deni ed th e m o tio n to re o p e n a n d o u r s ta yis n o w v a c a te d . 5 A ppeal s , 413 F. 3d 232, 233 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( percur i am) ( I n r evi ew i ng the deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen, courtof appe al s does notpas s on the mer i t s of the under l y i ng excl us i on p ro c e e d in g s ).

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. 3