2007 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

2-20-2007 

# Kibind a v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-4237

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 l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Kib ind a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1539. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1539P 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. 05- 4237

VAL E RI O F OR T UNAT O T UAL I KI BI NDA,

Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om an 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 ( B oar d N o. A 95 381 152) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M

. H oneym an

A r gued J anuary8, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E , A M B R O a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed: February20, 2007)2 H yung P. St eel e ( A r gued) PepperH ami l t on 1 8 th a n d A rc h S tre e ts 3 0 0 0 T w o L o g an S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103
M i chae l S. H i no ( A r gued) PepperH ami l t on 899 C as s at tR oad 4 0 0 B erw yn P ark B er w yn, PA 19312 A t t or neys f

orP et i t i oner R i char d M

. E vans Paul Fi or i no Susa n K

. H ous er( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 A t t or neys f

orR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. V al er i o K i bi nda s eeks r evi ew of an or der of t he B oar d of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s ( “B IA ”) affi rm i ng t he den i a l of his requestCon f l i c tb et w e e n t h e Ang o l a n g o v e r n me n ta n d FLEC 1 s t r et ches back t o 1975, w hen M ar xi stA ngol an for ces , t he “M ovi m ent o Popul arde Li ber t açã o de A ngol a” ( “Popul ar M ovem en t f

ort he Li ber at i on of A ngol a – M PL A ”) , i nvaded C abi n d a, over t hr ew t he pr ovi s i onal governm entt hathad bee n for m ed by FL E C , and annexed t he re gi on t o A ngol a. C abi nda is e th n ica llya n d lin g u istica llyd istin c t f r o m th e re st o f

A n g o la a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l l y d i s c o n n e c t e d f r o m t h e c o u n t r y. 3 foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rt he C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew t he pet i t i on pur s uantt o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( a) and w i l l deny t he pet i t i on. I

. BA CK GR OUND Pet i t i onerV al er i o K i bi nda, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of A ngol a, i s fr om C abi nda, an oi l

- r i ch ar ea admi ni s t er ed as an excl ave of A ngol a si nce C abi ndan and A ngol an l i ber at i on fr om P o rt ug uese rul e i n 1 97 5. M anyC abindan s bel i eve thatt h e ir r egi on s houl d be aut onom ous butt he A ngol an governm ent s t r ongl ys u p pr es s es anys uch not i on. A ful l

- s cal e ci vi l w ar betw een a C abi ndan s epar ati stgr oup, t he “Fr ent e par a a L i ber t açã o do E ncl ave de C abi nda” ( “Fr ontfort he L i ber at i on of t he E ncl ave of

C abi nda – FL E C ”) , and A ngol an governm ent for ces has been ongoi ng s i nce 1993. T he U ni t ed St at es 1 D epart m entof St at e, an ad- hoc comm i s s i on of t he U ni t ed N a tio n s, and vari ou s h u m a n itaria n o rg a n iza tio n s re p o rt th a t b o th A ngol an governm ent for ces and F L E C have c om m i t t ed human r i ght s abus es agai ns tt hei rper cei ved enem i es i n t he cour s e of t hi s bl oodydi s put e.T he fir stparagraph o f t his add end um reads: 2 M yo ri g in a l a f

f id a v it . . . c o n ta in s a m i s t a k e . . . . 4 A tage s i xt ee n , K i bi nda w as i dent i fi ed byt he A ngol an g o v e rn m e n t as a tale n ted stu d e n t a n d se n t, a lleg e d lya g a in st h is w i l l , t o C uba forfi ve y ear s o f tr aining ata mi l i t aryi ns t i tut e. A ft er t hat t r ai ni ng w as compl et e, K i bi nda w as i nduct ed i nt o t he A ngol an arm y , agai n al l egedl y agai ns t hi s w i l l , and tr ans ferr ed t o An g o l a n a r myh e a d q u a r t e r s i n t h e c a p i t a l c i t yo f Lu a n d a . By th is tim e , the A n g o lan a rm yw a s f ig h tin g re b e l f

o rc e s w ith in A n g o la, p rim a rilyth e “ U n ião N a c io n a l p a ra a In d e p e n d ê n c ia T ot al de A ngol a” ( “N at i onal U ni on fort he T ot al I ndepende nce o f A n g o la – U N IT A ” ), b u t a ls o F L E C se p a ra tist re b e ls in C abi nda. D ur i ng t he t i m e K i bi nda w as s t at i oned i n L uanda, an in c id e n t o c c u rre d th a t f

o rm s p a rt o f

th e b a sis o f

K ib in d a ’s c laim of pas tper s ecut i on i n this cas e. A n or derw as i s s ued byt he A ngol an arm y requi r i ng t hatal l offi cer s r emai n i ns i de the L uandan mi l i t arycomp lex due t o a vi ol entpr ot es tt hatw as bei n g h e l d i n t h e c i t yb yt h e Ba k o n g o e t h n i c g r o u p . Ki bi nda w as di s cover ed r etur ni ng t o hi s barr acks fr om an over ni ghts t ay out s i de the mi l i t arycompl ex, w hic h w as i n vi ol at i on of t he o rd e r, an d w a s d e tain e d f o r f iv e d a y s a s a re su lt. D e sc rib in g th is i nci dent in hi s or i gi nal as y l um appl i cat i on, K i bi nda s t at ed that he had been ar r es t ed and t or tur ed forfi ve day s forpar t i ci pat i ng in th e B a k o n g o p ro tes t. H ow ever , i n an addendum t o hi s aff i davi t , s ubm i t t ed the d a yb e f o re h is im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g , K ib in d a re tra c ted th is cl ai m . H e r ei t er at ed thathe w as det ai ned for fi ve day s , butt he

2[I]t refer s t o an i nci denti n 1993 w her e I w as im p ri so n ed fo r a p eriod o f f ive d ay s. . . . [I]t s t at es t hatI w as acc us ed of t aki ng part i n t he B akongo R evol tof 1992, and t h at I had been t or tur ed w hi l e i n cus t o d y and s us t ai ned i nj ur i es t hatr equi r ed me t o be hospi t al i zed forone mont h. T h is is in c o rre c t. A ddendum t o R es pondent ’ s A ffi davi tat1. 5 onl yabus e he de s cr i bed w as an i nci denti n w hi ch a gua r d t hr ew a n u n id e n tifie d h e a v y o b jec t in to a c e ll K ib in d a sh a re d w ith six ot hers ol di er s . T hatobj ecthi tK i bi nda i n t he j aw bone, caus i ng an i nj ur yr equi r i ng s even st it ches

. H e made no fur t her al l egat i ons of abus e ort or tur e i n t hi s addendum and att ri b ut ed th e “ in c o rre c t” s tate m e n ts i n h is o rig in a l af f id a v it t o a n e rro r in t r ans l at i on. N o fur t herr eper cus s i ons occurr ed af t ert he fi ve- day det ent i on, and fourm ont hs l at erK i bi nda w as s el ect ed foroffi cer t r ai ni n g . H e gr aduat ed fr om t hatt r ai ni ng as a fi r s tl i eut enant and w as s hor t l yt her eaf

t er s el ect ed al ong w i t h t w enty fi ve other offi cer s foreven f

ur t herm i l i t aryt r ai ni ng i n R i o de J anei r o, B r azi l

. W hi l e i n B r azi l , K i bi nda s tudi ed w art act i cs , earned an a c c o u n t i n g d e g r e e f

r o m a Br a z i l i a n u n i v e r s i t y , a n d me tand m ar r i ed a Bra zi l i an ci t i zen. I n t he cour s e of the t rai ni ng pr ogr am, K i bi nda w as as s i gned t o m oni t or a y oungerC abi ndan c a d e t. In 2 0 0 0 , at th e e n d o f th e p ro g ra m , this c a d e t to ld K i bi nda of hi s pl ans t o fl ee t o t he N ether l ands and s eek a s y l um th e re . T h e c a d e t g a v e K ib in d a a c o p yo f a F L E C m e m b e rsh ip car d t hathad pr evi ous l ybel onged t o K ibinda’ s cous i n, t el l i ng6 K i bi nda thati tw oul d hel p hi m fi nd s uppor tand as s i s t ance fr om f e llo w C a b in d a n s in o th e r co u n tries . K ib in d a tes tifie d th a t th is FL E C car d w as di s cover ed by an offi cer w i th w hom he s har ed l i ving qu art ers and turned o ver t o h i s superi ors. K i bi nda t ook t he C abi ndan ca dett o t he ai rpor tundert he pr et ens e thatt he ca detw as r etur ni ng t o A ngol a as expec t ed. I ns t ead, t he cade t fl ed t o t he N ether l ands as pl anned. W hen the cade tfai l ed t o r epor tback t o ar m yheadqua r t er s i n A ngol a, K ibind a w as c alle d in fo r qu esti o n ing b yh is co m m an d er. K ib in d a a lleg e s th a t h e w a s told h e w o u ld b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le i f t he ca det d id n otr etur n t o A ngol a. A ft ert hi s confr ont at i on, K i bi nda dec i ded t o l eave B r azi l and fl ew t o t he U ni t ed St at es on a val i d t our i s t vi s a, appar ent l y w i t h t he i nt ent i on of t r avel i ng on t o C anada t o seek as y l um t her e. H e neve rw entt o C anada , how ever , but r etur ned t w o m ont hs l at er t o B r azi l t o col l ectback pay o f $ 6, 000. 00, w hi ch w as hal f of w hathe w as ow ed byt he A n g o lan a rm y . W h ile b a c k in B ra z il, K ib in d a w a s p ro m o ted to t he r ank of l i eut enant and or der ed bac k t o A ngol a, w her e he w as t ol d he coul d col l ect t he re m ai nder of hi s back pa y . Suspe ct i ng th a t th e p ro m o tio n w a s m e r e lya ru se to “ e n tice ” h im b a c k to A n g o la f o r p u n ish m e n t, he re tu rn e d to th e U n ited S tate s o n h is s t i l l

- val i d t our i s tvi s a. H i s w i fe j oi ned hi m o n D ece m ber23, 2001. O n J anua ry 10, 2002, K i bi nda, act i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a t i m el yas y l um appl i cat i on. A tK i bi nda’ s hear i ng, t he i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) found t hatan adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on w as notw arr ant ed, and t hat K i bi nda had a genui ne s ubj ect i ve fea ro f p er s ecut i on. H ow ever , he found K i bi nda’ s s ubj ect i ve fear of per s ecut i on w as obj ect i vel y unr eas onabl e i n l i ght of t he r ecor d. Speci fi cal l y , he poi nt ed t o t he inv estm entm ade i n K i bi nda byt he A ngol anA l t er nat i vel y , t he I J found t hat even i f K i bi nda had met 3 h i s b u r d e n o f

e s t a b l i s h i n g s t a tu t o r ye l i g i b i l i t yf o ra s y l u m, asy l um shou l d b e den i ed in t he ex erci se o f dis cret i on becau se
“ r e s p o n d e n th a s n o tm e th i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t h e m e rits a f a v o ra b le e x e rc ise o f

d isc re tio n b e c a u s e h e h a s n o t p ro v e n th a t h e c o u ld n o t a c q u ir e le g a l im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s in B ra z il.” W e re v iew th e B IA ’s r e f u sa l to re o p e n th e re c o rd to 4 i nclude sup plem ental do cum ents and rem and t o t he IJ for abuse o f d is c re tio n . Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 5 F

. 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 5 (20 0 3 ). T h e B IA f

o u n d th a t K ib in d a h a d f a il e d to a d e q u a telye x p lain 7 gover nm ent , and found thatK i bi nda’ s r ec or d of pr om ot i on w i t hi n t he ar m ys ugges t ed thathe w as t rus t ed and va l ued byt he ar m yand t hus unl i kel yt o be per s ecut ed. I n addi ti o n , h e ci t ed t he gene r al rul e t hat f

ea r of c ons cr i pt i on and puni s hm entfor d e s e r t i o n c a n n o tf

o r m t h e ba s i s o f

a c o g n i z a b l e a s y l u m c l a i m, and found thatK i bi nda fa i l ed t o qual i fyfor an exce pt i on t o t hat rul e. C ons equent l y , t he I J concl uded thatK i bi nda’ s fea rof per s ecut i on w as not“w el l founded” and deni ed hi s r eques tfor asy lum

. B eca us e K i bi nda had notm ett he l ow ers t andar d of

3 pr oof fores t abl i s hi ng an as y l um cl ai m , t he I J concl uded thathe nece s s ar i l y di d not qual i fy forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval

. A s for th e C A T c laim , the IJ f

o u n d th a t th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd d id notes t abl i s h t hatK i bi nda w as l i kel yt o be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o A ngol a. K i bi nda appe al ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o t he B I A and s ubm i t t ed a mot i on t o admi tnew evi dence on appea l , w hi ch w as properl yden ied

. T he B IA affirm ed the decis i on of the IJ , 4w hy t hese docu m ents , w hich predat ed hi s heari ng befo re the IJ, w er e pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e. Fur t her m or e, t he B I A found t hat t h e s e d o c u me n t s we r e i n c o n s i s t e n twi t h Ki b i n d a ’ s o wn tes tim o n y . T h e r e f

o re , the B IA d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in r efu sing t o s uppl ement t he r ecor d and r emand forfur t her proceed i ng s. 8 a d o p tin g its f

in d in g s a n d re a so n in g . K ib in d a f il e d a tim e ly p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I I

. DI S CU S S I ON I n t hi s cas e, beca us e the B I A adopt ed t he r easo n ing of th e IJ in its d e c is io n , w e re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e IJ

. A bdul ai v . A sh c ro ft , 23 9 F

. 3d 54 2, 5 4 9 n .2 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). W e m ust uphol d t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs i f t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the recor d to suppo rtt hem , w hich i s “such rel evan tev idenc e as a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a co n clus ion. ” S e n a th i r a j a h v
. I NS , 1 5 7 F

. 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 6 (3d C ir

. 1998) (c i t at i on om i t t ed)

. U ndert hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, t he IJ’ s “f in d in g m u st be u p h e ld u n les s the e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr ar yconcl usi on, butcompel s i t

. ” A bdi l l e v. A sh c ro ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483- 84 ( 3d C ir

. 2001) ( ci t i ng I N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U

. S

. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (19 9 2 )). A

. A s y l um K i bi nda fi r s tar gues t hatt her e i s nots ubs t ant i al evi dence forthe IJ ’ s concl us i on t hathe w as nots t atut or i l yel i gi bl e for asy l um . T o b e el i gibl e byst atute, an asy l um app l i cant m ust d em o n str ate r ef

u g ee statu s b y sh o w ing p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n . 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 ).9 In order t o est abli sh past or futur e persecut i on , an ap pli cant m ust “s how pas t or pot ent i al har m r i s i ng t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on on acc ountof a st atut or i l y enumer at ed gr ound t hati s comm i t t ed by t he governm entorbyfor ces the governm enti s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o contr ol

. ” F i adj oe v. A t t ’ y G en. , 411 F. 3d 135, 160 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on gi ves r i s e t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of a w el l

- founded f earof fu ture p erse cu ti o n . 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 3 (b)(1 ). 1. P as tP ers ecut i on A tt he out s et , w e di s m i s s outof hand K i bi nda’ s cl ai m of pas tpers ecut i on i n t he form of “t or tur e” dur i ng hi s fi ve- day det ent i on by t he A ngol an ar m y . K i bi nda ar gues t hatt he I J fai l ed to “d ev elop ” the tortu re claim at K ibind a’s h ea ri n g . H o w ev er, a s a lr e a d ys ta te d , supra , K ib in d a u n e q u iv o c a llyre tra c ted th is c laim in a n a m e n d m e n t to h is as y lu m a p p lica tio n , d e sc rib in g it as a m i s t ake at t r i but abl e t o an err or i n tr ans l at i on. I n addi t i on, K ibind a sw o re a t his i m m igrati o n h e a ri n g that the e n ti re s ubs t ance of hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , as amended, w as t rue and corr ect

. I t i s s el f evi dent t hat an I J has no obl i gat i o n (or author i t y , fort hat m at t er ) t o r eac h back i nt o t he r ecor d t o r evi ve and “de vel op” a cl ai m t hat a pet i t i onerhas expl i ci t l ydi s avow ed. T h u s, w e re

jec t an y a ttem p ts b yK ib in d a to n o w re a ss e rt a c laim o f “ to rt u re .” E ven s o, pas tper s ecut i on need n o t ri s e t o the l evel of t or tur e t o be gr ounds foras y l um . I n Fa t i n v
. I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ), w e a cc ep ted th e B IA ’s de fin it ion o f th e term “per s ecu ti o n ” t o i ncl ude “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e t hatt heycons t i tut e a thr eat t o l i fe or fr eedom. ” I

d. at 1240. W e m ade cl ear t hatper s ecut i onA n al i en’ s t es t i m onybyi t s el f, i f cr edi bl e, can s at i s fyt he 5 bur den of es t abl i s hi ng a cl ai m forr el i ef byobj ect i ve evi dence

. See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (a ); D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. H er e, K i bi n d a’s t es t i m onydi d nots at i s fyt hat bur den. 10 re f e rs o n lyto “ se v e re ” c o n d u c t an d “ d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll t r eatm ent our s oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal

. ” I

d. K i bi nda’ s det ent i on byt he A ngol an ar m yand the a tten d a n t circ u m sta n c e s o f th a t d e ten tio n sim p lyd o n o t r ise to the lev el of

p erse cu ti o n as w e h av e d ef ined it

. In o rde r t o fo rm t he b asi s for an asy l um cl ai m , t he co nd uct com plai ned of m ust be “e xt r eme. ” I

d. a t1 2 4 3 ( “ ‘ [ P ] e r s e c u t i on ’ i s a n e x t r e me c o n c e p t th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e e v e ry so rt o f tre a tm e n t o u r so c iety r egar ds as offe ns i ve. ”)

. T he mal t r eatm entK i bi nda expe r i ence d att he hands of pr i s on guar ds , as offe ns i ve as i t m ay be, w as far fr om unus ual orextr eme. I n addi t i on, t he injuryK i bi nda su ff ere d a s a resu lto f th is m alt rea tm en t, tho u g h itleft a sc ar, w as ce rt ai nly no t severe, requi ri ng as itdid onlya few st i t ches. See Voci v. G onz al es , 409 F. 3d 607, 615 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “[O ] ur cas es s ugges tt hati s ol at ed i nci dent s t hat do notr es ul ti n s er i ous in ju ry d o n o t r ise t o the lev el of p erse cu ti o n . ”) (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). W h il e w e d o n o t m ea n to su g g est th a t the s ev erityo f a n injury s houl d be meas ur ed i n s t i t ches , K i bi nda has pr ovi ded n o ot her obj ect i ve evi dence t o demonst r at e thatt he s i ngl e i nj ur yhe s uffe r ed w as s ever e enough t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on underour s t r i ngents t andar d. 5C ouns el forK i bi nda ar gues “i t i s r eas onabl e t o concl ude 6 th a t th e h a rm [ K ib in d a ] su f f e re d w a s m o tiv a ted a t le a st, in p a rt, b yan ac tual o r i m p u ted g rou n d estab li sh ing the n ex u s fo r a f in d in g o f p a st p e rse c u tio n .” R e p ly B r. o f P e t’r 7 . T h e yf

a il t o p ro v id e a n yo b

jec tiv e e v id e n c e , d ire c t o r c irc u m sta n tial, how ever , of a l i nk betw een t he i nci dentand K i bi nda’ s C abi ndan h erit ag e. I n I

N S v. E l i as - Zacar i as , 502 U

. S. 478, 481 ( 1992), t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned thatan as y l um ap p li ca nti s not re q u ire d to p ro v id e “ d ire c t p ro o f o f h is p e rse c u to rs’ m o tiv e s” in o rd e r t o m a k e o u t a c la im o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n . I

d. at483. H ow ever , beca us e “the s t atut e makes m ot i v e cri t i cal , [a pet it i oner ] m us tpr ovi de s om e evi dence of i t , di r ector ci r cumst ant i al

. ” I

d. 11 F u rt h erm o re, e v e n assu m ing that the in juryw as se v ere eno ug h to const i tute per secut i on , K i binda ha s fai l ed to est abli sh t hatt hi s m al t r eatm entw as on acc ountof a s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed gr ound. I n fac t , t he ambi guous ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he in c id e n t – “ so m e th in g ” h e a v yw a s th ro w n in th e d a rk e n e d c e ll a t n u m e ro u s in d iv id u a ls a n d h it K ib in d a in th e jaw – m a k e it di ffi cul ti f noti m pos s i bl e t o as cert ai n w hatm ot i ve ther e w as for t he i nci dentand w hetheror not K i bi nda w as even the i nt ended tar g e t. 6 2. Fut ur e Pers ecut i on W h en an asy lum req u est i s b ase d o n a f e a r o f f u ture per s ecut i on, a pet i t i onerm us ts how a w el l

- founded s ubj ect i ve fea r , w hi ch i s “s uppor t ed by obj ect i ve evi dence t hatper s ecut i on i s a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t y . ” L i n v
. I NS , 238 F. 3d 239, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. T he I J found K i bi nda’ s fea r of b eing p er s ecut edA lth o u g h th e IJ d id n o t f in d th a t K ib in d a ’s o v e ra ll 7 tes tim o n ym e rited a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , h e d id fi nd i t“i m pl aus i bl e” that K i bi nda w as pr om ot ed byt he A ngol an a r mye v e n t h o u g h t h e a r mys u s p e c t e d h i m t o b e a F L EC sy m p athize r. K i bi nda al s o ar gues t hathe w oul d be per s ecut ed by 8 m e m b e rs o f

F L E C if re m o v e d to A n g o la. H o w e v e r, K ib in d a d id no tm ake an ysuch clai m befo re the IJ or B IA and cann ot r ai se th a t c l a im f

o r t h e f ir s t tim e in a p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ). T h is s tatu to ryre q u ire m e n t, i n ten d e d to en su re tha t th e B IA h as h ad a f u ll o p p o rtu n ityto co n side r a c laim b e f

o r e it i s s u b m itt e d to a f e d e ra l co u rt, req u ire s th a t a p e tit io n e r “ ra ise a n d e x h a u st h is . . . re m e d ie s a s to e a c h c laim 12 b a se d o n h is s u sp e c ted C a b in d a n sy m p a th ies w a s o b jec tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le. T h is f

in d in g is s u p p o rte d b ya m p le e v id e n c e in t he r ecor d t hat K i bi nda had a l w ay s been va l ued and trus t ed by t he A ngol an arm y . T he A ngol an governm ents el ect ed K i bi nda fort en y ea rs of s peci al s chool i ng and off i cert r ai ni ng and pr om ot ed hi m t w i ce, t o a fi nal r ank of l i eut enant

. I n addi t i on, th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e A n g o lan a rm yd id n o th in g to di s ci pl i ne K i bi nda af

t erdi s cover i ng he had a FL E C car d and t hathe had he l ped a Cabi ndan ca det des er t and i n fac tpr om ot ed K ib in da af

t erw ards. T his i s “such rel evan tevidence as a

7 re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a concl us i on. ” Senathi r aj ah , 1 5 7 F

. 3 d a t 2 1 6

. Co n s e q u e n t l y , we uphol d t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hat , bas ed on thi s evi dence , t her e i s no re a so n a b le p o s s ib ilityo f p e rse c u tio n if

K ib in d a is re m o v e d to A ngol a. 8orgr ound forr el i ef if he .

. . i s t o pr es er ve the r i ghtof j udi ci al r evi ew of t hatcl ai m . ” A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 5 9 4 -95 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 13 K i binda fu rther ar gu es he i s e nti t l ed to asy l um becau se t he puni s hm enthe w i l l fac e as a des er t erw i l l be di s pr opor t i onat el ygr eat erbeca us e he i s a C abi ndan. D i s pr op o rt iona t e puni s hm entm aycons t i tut e per s ecut i on i n an a p p ro p ri a te c a s e . See Ma t t e ro f A

- G- , 19 I

. & N

. D ec. 502, 502 ( B I A 1987) ( “Per s ecut i on forfai l ur e t o s er ve i n t he mi l i t arym ay b e e sta b lish e d in th o se ra re c a se s w h e r e a d isp ro p o rtio n a tely s ever e puni s hm entw oul d r es ul ton acc ou n t o f o ne of the fi ve g rou n d s en u m era ted in sec ti o n 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ) of th e [IN A ]. ”). T hi s i s an exc ept i on t o t he gene r al rul e thatpuni s hm entfor deser t i on does notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on forpurpos es on an a s y lu m c la im

. S e e L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 8 (“It is g e n e ra llya c c e p ted ‘th a t a so v e re ig n n a tio n e n jo y s th e rig h t to enfor ce it s l aw s of cons cr i pt i on, and thatpenal t i es forevas i on are n o t con side red p erse cu ti o n . ’”) (cit ati o n o m itted). T hi s r ecor d does notsu ppor tappl i cat i on of t he di s pr opor t i onat e puni s hm entexce p ti o n t o t he gene r al rul e. K i bi nda’ s fea rof d i s p r o p o rt i o n a t e l ys e ver e puni s hm entbas ed on hi s C abi ndan her i t age i s bel i ed by the s ame r ecor d evi dence ci t ed byt he I J i n fin d ing K i bi nda’ s fea rof per s ecut i on w as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. K i bind a, des pi t e hi s C abi ndan her i t age, w as s i ngl ed outfors peci al t r ai ni ng and pr om ot i ons t hr oughouthi s car eer , and w as al w ay s t r eat ed b y t he A ngol an ar m yas a val ued and t rus t ed m ember , r i ght up unt i l t he t i m e he des er t ed the arm yand l eft fo r th e U ni t ed St at es . A bs entanyK i binda present s thi s ar gu m ent unde r the rubri c of “ past 9 per s ecut i on” i n hi s br i ef, but as w il l become cl earfr om our di s cus s i on, w e thi nk i tm or e appr opr i at e t o cons i der t he cl ai m as an aspe ctof K i binda’s prospecti ve fe ars . 14 obj ect i ve evi dence t o t he cont r ary , w e fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he conc l us i on t hatanypuni s hm entK ibi nda may re cei ve u po n rem ov al can therefore onl ybe attri bu t ed to his statu s as a n arm yd ese rt er. N ext , K i bi nda ar gues he i s ent i t l ed t o as y l um bas ed on h is f e a r o f b e in g p u t in a p o sitio n th a t w o u ld re q u ire h im to comm i thum an r i ght s abus es con d em n ed byt he i nt ernat i onal comm uni t yagai ns thi s ow n peopl e. See I slam i v. G onz al es , 9 412 F. 3d 391 ( 2d C i r . 2005)

. T hi s exce pt i on t o t he rule t hat p u n ish m e n t f

o r d e se rtio n is n o t p e rse c u tio n is re lev a n t to b o th pas tand futur e per s ecut i on. I t i s gener al l yappl i cabl e as a means of demonst r at i ng pas tper s ecut i on t o i ndi v idua l s w ho have r efus ed i n t he pas tt o s er ve i n an i nt ernat i onal l ycondemned m ilita ry f

o rc e a n d h a v e f

le d to a v o id p a rt ic ip a tio n . See i d. at 3 9 8 (“[ T ]he p ast p erse cu ti o n co n sist ed o f the S erb -l ed m il it ary e n g a g in g in ig n o m in io u s a c tiv iti e s, a n d Isla m i h a v in g to f lee to av o id p arti cipa ti o n in suc h ac ts w h ich, in m an yinstan ce s w ere perpetr at ed aga i ns thi s ow n b esi eged e t hni c/r el i gi ous comm uni t y . ”)

. I ti s r el evantt o a fe arof futur e per s ecut i on i ns ofaras cour t s have r ecogni zed that w her e cons cr i pt i on pl ace s an i ndi vi dual i n a pos it ion i n w hi ch he m ightbe f o rc e d to com m i tact s that th e i nternati on al com m un i t ycon dem ns, puni s hm ent for r efus i ng t o par t i ci pat e i n s uch ac t s m ayamount to p e rs e c u tio n f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

a n a s y lu m c la im

. See M a tt er ofA l t hough w e nee d notr es ol ve the i s s ue of w hethert he 10 A ngol an ca m pai gn i n C abi nda i s an i nt ernat i onal l ycondemned 15 A

- G- , 1 9 I& N D e c . a t 5 0 6 , a f f ’ d s u b n o m. , M

. A

. A 26851062 v. Un i t e d S t a t e s I NS , 8 9 9 F

. 2 d 3 0 4 (4 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). See a l so Mekho ukh v. A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 8 F

. 3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 6 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); Mo js i l o v i c v
. I

NS , 1 5 6 F

. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 7 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). K i bi nda, of cour s e, has notr efus ed t o s er ve i n t he m i l i t ar y . I n t hat r egar d, K i bi nda’ s cas e can b e d is t i ngui s hed f r o m I s l a mi , t he pr i m ary cas e upon w hi ch he r el i es , i n w hi ch the pet i t i oner“es cape d fr om K os ovo . . . t o avoi d bei ng cons cr i pt ed i nt o t he Y ugos l avi an mi l i t ary. . . . ” 412 F. 3d at 393. W e mi ght conce de thatt hi s i s a di s t i nct i on w i t hout a di ffe r ence , i ns ofaras K ib in d a a lleg e s th a t h e n o w re f u se s to se rv e in th e m ili tar yin or derto av o id be i ng pl ace d i n a pos i t i on i n w hi ch he mi ghtbe f o rc e d to c o m m it i n ter n a tio n a llyc o n d e m n e d h u m a n rig h ts abus es agai ns thi s ow n peopl e. W e m i ght even c oncede fort he s ake of arg u m entt hatt he A ngol an ca m pai gn t o s uppr es s t he C a b in d a n se p a ra tist m o v e m e n t q u a lifie s a s a n in te r n a tio n a lly condemned campai gn, al t hough t hat ques t i on w as notr es ol ved in th e b rie f

s o r a t o ra l ar g u m e n t. E ven s o, K i bi nda has pr es ent ed no obj ect i ve evi d ence t hati t i s a re as onabl e poss i bi l i t yt hathe w i l l be pl ace d i n s uch a p o sitio n o r th a t h e w ill b e p u n ish e d if h e re f u se s to p a r tic ip a te i n a ca m pai gn of atr oci t i es agai ns thi s ow n peopl e. K i bi nda a r t i c u l a t e d o n l ya s p e c u l a t i v e f e a ro f h a v i n g t o f

i g h t h i s o wn peopl e, a fe art hathe had f el t s i nce he w as fi r s ti nduct ed i nt o t he ar m y , and one t hatnevercame t o frui t i on i n m or e than a de cade of s er vi ce i n t he arm y . H e fa i l ed to p res entanyobj ect i ve 10campai gn, w e not e t hat , s t andi ng al one, a fe arof havi ng t o fi ght o n e ’s o w n p e o p le m a y“ re f lec t th e u n p lea s a n t re a lit ies o f c iv il w ar ” butdoes not nece s s ar i l y “cont empl at e [] ethni c cl eans i ng and otheratr oci t i es . ” Mo js i l o v i c v
. I

NS , 1 5 6 F .3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 7 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). 16 evi dence t hathe w oul d be for ced t o par t i ci p at e i n anyhum an r i ght s abus es i f r etur ned t o A ngol a. I n fac t , he t es t i fi ed t hathe h a d se e n c o m b a t o n lyo n c e , in th e c o u rse o f a six tee n d a yb a ttl e agai ns tnon- C abi ndan r ebel for ces i n an ar ea out s i de of Cabi nda. Fur t her m or e, he pr es ent ed no obj ect i ve evi dence s ugges t i n g that he w oul d be puni s hed for ref u sing t o par t i ci pat e i n anys uch act i vi ti es . “[I ] ti s t he puni s hm entforr efus i ng t o s er ve i n an i nt er nat i onal l ycondemned m i l i t ary. . . t hatcons t i tut es per s ecut i on. T her efor e, w hen an a l i en does not w ish to be a ss o c iate d w ith a m ili tar yth a t en g a g e s in u n iv e rsa lly cond emned act s of vi ol ence , ‘ t he onl yr el evantfac t ori s t he l i kel i hood t hatt he al i en w i l l be puni s hed. ’ ” Mo jsilo v ic , 156 F. 3d at747 ( quot i ng M

. A. A2 6 8 5 1 0 6 2 v
. I NS , 858 F

. 2d 210, 214- 15 ( 4t h C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (e n banc) )

. A s w e do notfi nd t hatt he r ecor d evi dence i s “s o compel l i ng t hatno r eas onabl e fa ctfi nder c o u ld f ail to f

ind the re q u isi te fe ar o f p erse cu tio n ,” E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 02 U

. S. at483- 84, w e mustuphol d t he concl us i on of t he I J on t hi s i s s ue. I n s u mm a r y , a p p l y i n g a d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w, w e fi nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the IJ ’ s concl us i on t hat K i bi nda had notes t abl i s hed pas tper s ecut i on and di d nothave a n obj ect i vel yw el l founded f earof per s ecut i on. H e i s t her efor e notB eca us e w e uphol d t he I J ’ s fin di ng t hatK i bi nda w as 11 not ent i t l ed t o as y l um under t he s t atut e, w e need not r evi ew t he I J ’ s al t ernat i ve rul i ng t hatK i bi nda w oul d nevert hel es s be i n e l i g i b l e f

o r a s y l u m a s a n e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b eca us e he f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a th e c o u l d n o t r e s e t t l e i n Br a z i l

. Ho we v e r , we not e thatunderourpr ece dentt he G overnm entcarr i es t he i ni t i al bu rden of

show i ng t hat an offe r of “fi rm res et t l e m e n t” e xis t s, A b d ill e v . A sh c ro

ft , 242 F. 3d 477, 486 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and t o t he ext ent t he ques t i on of fi r m r es ett l ement i n t hi s cas e turns on B ra z ili a n law , the G o v e r n m e n t w a s re q u ire d to se t f o rth e v id e n c e o f

th e s u b s ta n c e o f

th a t la w . I

d. at491- 92. K i bi nda decl i ned t o des i gnat e a countr yof r emoval and the I J s et t l ed on A ngol a as t he count r y of r emoval

. N ot hi ng i n this op ini on sh o u ld be co n stru ed as ba rri n g rem o v al o r v o lun taryd ep arture to B r azi l , s houl d t hatbecome a pos s i bi l i t ybeca us e K i bi nd a’s w i fe i s B r azi l i an. 17 sta tu to rilye lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m . A s K ib in d a h a s f a iled to 11 e sta b lish a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n , h e h a s f

a iled to m e e tt h e h i g h e rs t a n d a r d o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g a “ c l e a rp r o b a b i l i t y” of per s ecut i on and t hus i s al s o notel i gi bl e forw i thh o lding of re m o v a l. Ba l a z o s k i v
. I NS , 9 3 2 F

. 2 d 6 3 8 , 6 4 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). B

. T h e C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re K i bi nda’ s fi nal cl ai m i s t hat he i s el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval undert he C A T

. A n appl i cants eeki ng r el i ef unde r t he C A T m us t es t abl i s h “that i t i s m or e l i kel yt han nott hathe or s he w ou ld b e tortur ed i f r emoved t o t he pr opos ed countr yof r emoval. ” S e v o ia n v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 0 F

. 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 -75 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o ti n g 8 C

. F

. R

. § 2 0 8

. 1 6 (c)(2)). A lth o u g h the s tand ard18 fores t abl i s hi ng a C A T cl ai m i s m or e s t r i ngentt han the as y l um s t andar d, i tdoes notfol l o w that a fa i l ur e t o m eett he as y l um s ta n d a rd n e c e s s a ri ly p re c lu d e s a C A T c la im

. See G hebr ehi w ot v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 6 7 F

. 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (find in g IJ comm i t t ed l egal er r or i n hol di ng t hat fai l ur e t o m ee t t he ev iden ti aryb u rde n fo r asy lum p rec lud ed reli ef u n d er th e C A T ); A m a n fi v. A sh c ro

ft , 328 F

. 3 d 7 1 9, 725 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “A p eti ti o n fo r pro tecti o n u n d er the C o n v e n tio n A g ains t T o rtu re di ffe r s s i gni fi cant l y fr om pet i t i ons for as y l um orw i t hhol di ng of r emoval beca us e the al i en nee d notdemonst r at e thathe w i l l be to rtu re d o n a c c o u n t o f a p a rticu lar b e lief o r im m u tab le ch ara cterist ic. ”). H ow ever , t he I J i n t hi s cas e di d notconcl ude thatK i bi nda w a s in e lig ib le f

o r C A T re lief

sim p lyb e c a u se h e h a d f a iled to m eethi s as y l um bur den of pr oof. R ather, the I J s t at ed that “[t ] aki ng t hi s [as y l um ] anal y s i s i nt o acc ount , butal s o r evi ew i ng al l of t he cr edi bl e s our ce mat er i al s i n t he r ecor d, t he C our tdoes notfi nd i t m or e l i kel yt han nott hatr es pondentw oul d be t or tur ed .

. . . ” In as s es s i ng t he r i s k of t or tur e, t he I J w as r equi r ed t o cons i der“al l evi dence r el evant t o t he poss i bi l i t yof f u tu re to rtu re .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(3 ) (2 0 0 0 ). V a rio u s re p o rts w er e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence at K i bi nda’ s i m m i gr at i on hear i ng, in c lu d in g o f

f icia l co u n tryre p o rts p re p a re d b yth e U .S . S tate D epart m ent , as w el l as r epor t s fr om pr i vat e or gani zat i ons s uch as H u m an R igh ts W atch an d A m n estyInter n a ti o n al. T h e IJ cons i der ed t hes e var i ous s our ces and conc l ud ed thatK i bi nda w as not l i kely t o be t ortured i f r eturned t o A ng ola. W hil e t hese s our ces do r epor ts om e i nci dent s of t or tur e i n A n g o l a, t he ev id e n tia ryrec o rd a s a w h o le do es n o t “co m p el” a co n tr ary c o n c lu s io n , E l i as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . at 4 8 1 n .1 , tha t to rtu re w ill19 m or e l i kel yt han notoccur if K ibi nda i s r emoved t o A ngol a. T h u s, w e m u st u p h o ld th e IJ’ s fin d ing w ith resp ec t t o K ibind a’s CAT c l a i m. III

. For t he f o r egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he B I A ’ s and I J ’ s deci s i ons to d enyr el i ef, a n d we wi l l a c c o r d i n g l yd e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.