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 6-22-2009 

# Awuk u 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 . 08-4778

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 " Awuk u v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1156. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1156NOT 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- 4778

___________ DANI E L BA ODI AWUKU, Pet i t i oner v . A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S , R es pondent 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 43- 808- 522) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A ndr ew A r thur

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 9, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 22, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerD ani el B aodi A w uku s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval . T he G overnm enthas m oved t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Fort he2

r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and denythe p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I . B ackgr ound A w uku i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of G hana. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on J ul y10, 19 93 , and recei ved l aw ful perm anen tres i den tst atus. D uri ng the n ext fourt een y ears , A w uk u accu m ulat ed seve ral cri m i nal conv i ct i on s for fi rearm s and co ntr oll ed sub st ancesr el at ed off

ens es . O n O ct ober17, 2007, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi ni t i at ed re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) f o u n d A w u k u to b e c re d ib le, b u t in anyeventr emovabl e bas ed on hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i ons . T he I J fur therconcl uded thatt he c o n v ic tio n s re n d e re d A w u k u s ta tu to ri ly in e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d a s y lu m . I n addi t i on, the I J found thatA w uku w as unabl e t o m ake a m er i t or i ous cl ai m under the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainstT orture ( “C A T ”) based on ei ther hi s st atus as a depor t ee orbeca us e of hi s s exual or i ent at i on. T he I J s peci fi cal l yfound thatA w uku had fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatanypot ent i al r epr i s al s fr om hi s uncl e, fr i ends and other G han ai an n at i on al s, w hich he feared o n acco un tof h i s prospect i ve societ al st atus as a cr i m i nal deport ee, i m pl i cat e G hana’ s governm entorr i s e t o the l evel of t or tur e. A nd w hi l e the I J di d not e thathom os exual G hanai ans fac e cr i m i nal penal t i es and s om et i m es abus e r i s i ng t o t he l evel of t or tur e, he al s o found thatA w uku had “f ai l ed t o s how thathe w o u ld b e ide n ti fied as a b isex u al or h o m o sex u al i f h e w ere return ed to G h an a” (A . R . 4 8 ), o r th at “h e w o u ld in f

ac t eng ag e in h o m o sex u al ac ti v ityin G h an a.” (A . R . 4 9 . ) B u t, the IJW e deni ed A w uku’ s s t aym ot i on i n a pr i oror der , and he w as r emoved fr om the 1 U nit ed S t at es t o G han a on or ar ou nd M arch 10 , 20 09 . T his fact , of co urse, do es not r ai se m o o tnes s co n ce rns. S ee B ejar v . A sh cro ft, 3 2 4 F . 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 3 found, even i f one orboth of thos e s i tuat i ons w er e ext antpos t - r emoval , “the evi dence [di d] nots uppor tthe conc l us i on thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat[A w uku] w oul d be su b ject t o tortu re . . . . ” (A . R . 5 0 . ) T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f f irm e d . W ith sp e c if

ic r e f e re n c e to A w uku’ s C A T cl ai m , the onl yone r ai s ed on appe al , the B I A not ed thatw hi l e i tw as “s ens i t i ve t o t he verys er i ous chal l enges fac ed bythe l es bi an, gay , bi s exual , and tr ans gender( L G B T ) comm uni tyi n G hana . . . the evi dence does nots uppor tthe vi ew t hat [ a n y ] m istre a tm e n t h a s d e sc e n d e d o r is lik e lyto d e sc e n d to th e lev e l o f ‘to rtu re ’ w ith in the meani ng of the C A T . ” ( B I A op. at2. ) T he B I A emphasi zed that“t or tur e i s ‘ an e x tre m e f

o rm o f c ru e l an d in h u m a n tre a tm e n t, th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e ‘ro u g h a n d d e p lo ra b le tr eatm ent , s uch as pol i ce brut al i ty . ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A w uku then fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i th thi s C our t . T he G overnm entm oved t o di s m i s s , cont endi ng thatw e l ack j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1 I I . J ur i s di ct i on W e w i l l denythe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s beca us e w e have j ur i s di ct i on o v e r A w u k u ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . T h e G o v e rn m e n t is c e rt a in ly co rr e c t th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ) p re v e n ts A w u k u f ro m c h a lle n g in g h is re m o v a b ility in th is C o u rt .R el y i ng com plet el yon i t s j uri sdi ct i on al argum ent, the G ov ernm ent does no tadd res s 2 the mer i t s of A w uku’ s C A T cl ai m i n i t s br i ef. 4 H ow ever , i ti s w r ong i n i t s r epea t ed as s ert i on that“[t ] hi s C our tl acks j ur i s di ct i on overany chal l enge t o t he fi ndi ng that[A w uku] fai l ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforC A T pr ot ect i on, as that is a fa ctua l determ ination . ” (G o v ’tM o t. to D is. at 3; G o v ’tB r. at 12 . ) U nder§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , thi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew w hethera pet i t i oner h as m et his b u rde n o f p roo f o n a C A T claim w h en the q u esti o n im p li ca tes th e B IA ’s appl i cat i on of l aw t o undi s put ed fa ct s . See Touss ai ntv. A t t ’ yG en. , 455 F. 3d 409, 412 n. 3 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( “[t ]he que st i on here i nv olves notdis pu t ed fa ct s but w hetherthe fa ct s, even w hen ac cept ed as true, s uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat [Touss ai nt ] w i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on ort or tur e upon r emoval t o H ai t i ”) ; K amar a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 420 F. 3d 202, 210- 11 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( courtof appe al s has j ur i s di ct i on aft er R E A L I D A ctt o r evi ew the appl i cat i on of l aw t o undi s put ed fa cti n the C A T cl ai m of an a lien c o n v icte d o f

a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ). S u c h is th e c a se f o r A w u k u , w h o se o n lyc laim befor e thi s C our ti s thatthe evi dence of r ecor d s uppor t s hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef unde r th e C A T . W e tu rn to th a t c la im n o w . I I I . D i s cus s i on A w u k u ’s s u c c e ss o n th e m e rits o f h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew h in g e s o n h is a b ili tyto demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyforC A T r el i ef, w hi ch he pr edi cat es on hi s fea rthathe w i l l be t or tur ed bec aus e of hi s s exual or i ent at i on. I ti s i ncumbentupon a pet i t i oners eeki ng s uch 2T h e S tate D e p a rtm e n t R e p o rt d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t th e se x u a l an d p h y sic a l ab u se is 3 at tri bu t able t o p ri son o ffi ci al s. 5 r el i ef t o demonstr at e “thati ti s ‘ m or e l i kel ythan not ’ thathe ors he w i l l be t or tur ed. ” P ierre v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (en b an c) (cit ati o n o m itted). “In or dert o cons t i tut e t or tur e, an ac tm us tbe s peci fi cal l yi nt ended t o i nfl i cts ever e phy s i cal or m ent al pai n ors uffe r i ng. ” I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal , ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hatactm us tbe

“ in f licte d b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f o r w ith th e c o n se n t o r a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic o f f ic ia l o r o th e r p e rs o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity.” Id . a t 1 8 9 (q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )(1 )). F u rth e rm o re , itis n o t en o u g h f o r p u b lic o f

f icia ls to b e “ w ill f

u llyb lin d ” to t or tur ous act s ; the off

i ci al s m us tbe ac t i vel yi nvol ved i n the perpetr at i on of s uch ac t s . I d. at190. W e fi r s texami ne the mostr el evantexce rpt s fr om the undi s put ed evi dence . T he 2007 St at e D epart m entR eports t at es that“[h] um an r i ght s pr obl ems [i n G hana] i ncl uded deaths r es ul t i ng fr om the exc es s i ve us e of f or ce bypol i ce; vi gi l ant e j us t i ce; har s h and l i fe- thr eat eni ng pr i s on condi t i ons ; pol i ce c orrupt i on and i m puni ty. . . s oci et al d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a g a i n s two me n , p e r s o n wi th d i s a b i l i t i e s , [ a n d ] h o mo s e x u a l s . . . . ” ( A. R. 388. ) Fur ther , “[t ] he l aw cr i m i nal i zes hom os exual i ty , and l es bi ans and gay s fac e w i despread d i scr i m i nati on , as w el l as poli ce harassm ent and ex t ort i on at t em pts . T here i s a m i ni m um m i s demeanorchar ge forhom os exual act i vi ty , and homosexua l m en i n pr i s on o f te n w e re s u b

je c te d to s e x u a l a n d o th e r p h y s ic a l a b u s e .” (A .R . 3 8 9 .) 36

In a d d it ion , the re co rd c o n tai n s an O ctob er 6 , 2 0 0 8 arti cle f rom the N ew Y o rk T im e s, e x c e rp ted in re lev a n t p a rt:

Forthe pas tfew y ear s , ant i - gayhy s teri a has be en s w eepi ng a c ro ss sw a th s o f

A f ric a , f u e led b y se n sa tio n a list m e d ia r e p o rts of open homosexua l i tyamong publ i c fi gur es and s us t ai ned by deep a nd abi di ng t abo o s that have made eve n the mosthat eful s peec h aboutgay s notj us tacc ept abl e but al m os tr equi r ed. G ay m en and w om en have recent l ybeen a rr es t ed i n C amer oon, N ig e ri a , U g a n d a a n d G h a n a , a m o n g o th e r c o u n tr ie s . ( A . R . 10) ( emphasi s added) . L as t l y , the 2006 r eportfr om the U ni t ed N at i ons H um an R i ght s C ounci l i s al s o r epl et e w i th exampl es of G hani ans , and i n one ca s e an A us tr i an nat i onal , w ho w er e ei thercr i m i nal l ypr os ecut ed forengagi ng i n hom os exual conduct , or w ho w er e phy s i cal l yas s aul t ed bynon- governm ent al act or s beca us e of thei rs exual o ri en tat ion . (A . R . 2 5 9 -26 3 . ) T h is e v id e n c e , w h ile u n se ttl in g , is u lti m a telyin su f f icie n t u n d e r th e C A T a n d th is C our t ’ s cas e l aw . T he r ecor d atbes tes t abl i s hes the pos s i bi l i tythatA w uku w i l l s uffe r s oci et al di s cr i m i nat i on and abus e, cr i m i nal penal t i es , m al tr eatm enti n pr i s on, and harass m ent and ex t ort i on from go vernm ent offi ci al s, shou l d h e be identi fi ed as a h o m o se x u a l. T h e re c o rd , h o w e v e r, f a ils to d e m o n stra te th a t itis “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” thatA w uku w i l l be t or tur ed bec aus e of hi s s exual or i ent at i on or , m or e i m por t ant l y , that anyt or tur ous act s w i l l be “i nfl i ct ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entor acqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orotherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty . ” Pi err e, 5 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 8 9 ; 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ).7

A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d e n yth e p e tit io n f o r re v iew . T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to di s m i s s i s deni ed.