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 Thir d C ir c uit 7-24-2008 

# B ah 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 . 07-3812

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_2008

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 2008 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 " B ah v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 802. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/802NOT 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. 07- 3812 OUS M ANE L AM AR ANA B AH, 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, R es pondent O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 98 278 974 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ryS . D o g in Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y23, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y24, 2008)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM O us m ane Lam ar ana Bah pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B oar d orB I A ) , w hi ch deni ed hi s appl i cat i on forr el i ef f r om r emoval . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.A l though B ah’ s br i ef s et s for th the r equi s i t e s t andar d forobt ai ni ng r el i ef unde rt he 1 C A T , B a h d id n o t c o n te s t th e d e n ia l o f re lie f u n d e r t h e C A T in h is a p p e a l to th e B o a rd . W e thus l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe deni al of C A T r el i ef. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) [Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i tyA ct(I N A ) § 242 (d) (1) ]; see al so B on ho m et re v. G on zal es, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B a h ’s b rie f

d o e s n o t m e n tio n th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( IJ’ s) r e jec tio n o f

h is c laim 2 b a s e d o n me mb e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p ; i . e . , h i s f a mi l y . Ap p . a t1 5 - 1 5 A ( A. R. 98- 99) . A ccor di ngl y , the cl ai m has been w ai ved. C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 221, 235 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 2 B ah i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the R epubl i c of G ui nea. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2003 and made an af fi r m at i ve as y l um appl i cat i on s oon ther eaf t er . T he a p p lica tio n w a s d e n ied , an d B a h w a s p lac e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s f o r o v e rsta y in g h is vi s a. B ah r enew ed hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on u n d er the U n it ed N ati o n s C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (C A T ). 1 B a h so u g h t re lief

b a se d o n p ro b lem s h e a n d h is f a th e r e x p e rie n c e d d u e to th e ir pol i t i cal i nvol vement . B ah t es t i fi ed thathe j oi ned the U N R pol i t i cal party , an 2 oppos i t i on partythathi s fatherbel onged t o, i n 1992. A . R . 169. W hen the partyno l onger exi s t ed, he and hi s fatherj oi ned the U FR partyi n 2000. A . R . 169- 70. B ah w or ked i n the p a rt ya t th e g ra s s ro o ts le v e l, d is tr ib u tin g m e m b e rs h ip c a rd s a n d h o ld in g y o u th m e e tin g s . A . R . 170. I n 2003, an i nt ernat i onal confe r ence fordemocr acyhad bee n pl anned t o be h e ld a t a la rg e h o tel. O n Ju n e 8 o f th a t y e a r, th e G u in e a n p re sid e n t w a s s c h e d u led to th arr i ve w i th a del egat i on atthe ai rpor tforthe conf er ence . O ppos i t i on pol i t i cal part i es gather ed atthe ai rpor tt o m eetthe pr es i dent , butthe G overnm entbr oke up the cr ow d and arr es t ed hundr eds of peopl e. A . R . 172- 74; A . R . 96. B ah fl ed and s t ay ed w i th tw o fr i endsT he B I A di d notagr ee, how ever , thatthe I J s houl d have r equi r ed thatB ah pr ovi de 3 corr obor at i on fr om the tw o fr i ends w i th w hom he hi d, as the I J di d notas cert ai n thats uch corr obor at i on w as r eadi l yavai l abl e. A . R . 3. 3 for tw o d ay s. A . R . 17 4-75. H e returned h om e on the thi rd day , and w as arres t ed b ecause of hi s i nvol vementi n t he eve nt s atthe ai rpor t . H e w as beat en and t or tur ed dur i ng a c o n f i n e me n to f

a l mo s ta mo n th . A. R. 1 7 5 - 7 6 . He wa s r e l e a s e d wh e n h i s wi f e p a i d s o me m o n e y . A .R . 1 7 7 . H e w e n t to a h o sp ital, g o t a p re sc rip tio n , an d lef t, bu t h e c o n tin u e s to fee l pai n i n hi s l efts houl derand hi s back. A . R . 193- 94. B ah al s o s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tfr om hi s m other , des cr i bi ng pr obl ems herhus band h a d d u e to h is p o lit ica l in v o lv e m e n t, an d sta tin g th a t h e r so n (B a h ) “ w a s a rre ste d a lso in Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , at th e in ter n a tio n a l airp o rt o f C o n a k ryG b e ss ia a f

ter p a rticip a tin g a t a m ani fes t at i on . . . . ” A . R . 487. T he tr ans l at i on of the af fi davi ts t at es thatB ah w as

“ lo c k e d ” a t th e C o n a k ryp re c in c t f o r 2 7 d a y s, a n d th a t “[ w ]e p a id m o n e yto h a v e h im fr eed, beca us e of hi s w i fe thatw as m ent al l yi napt[s i c] . ” A . R . 487. T he I J deni ed r el i ef ba s ed on an a dver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, ci t i ng di ffe r ence s b e tw e e n B a h ’s te stim o n ya n d h is m o th e r’s a f f id a v it (w h e re h e w a s a rre ste d a n d w h o p a id t o have hi m r el eas ed) ; and al s o beca us e B ah fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof by adequa t el ycorr obor at i ng hi s cl ai m s . T he B oar d di s m i s s ed B ah’ s appea l , fi ndi ng no cl ear err ori n the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. A pp. at3- 4 ( A . R . 2- 3) . T he B oar d al s o found n o e rr o ri n th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n th a tBa h s h o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d c o rr o b o r a t i o n o f h i s c l a i ms fr om hi s w i fe a nd hi s pol i t i cal party . I d. 34

W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o f

th e B IA u n d e r 8 U .S .C . 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “[ W ]he n the B IA b o th a d o p t s th e f

i n d i n g s o f

th e I J a n d d i s c u s s e s s o me o f th e b a s e s f

o rth e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we have a uthor i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O urs t andar d of r evi ew i s narr ow . W e musts us t ai n the B o a rd ’s r e m o v a l o rd e r if th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt it. A b d ill e v . A s h c ro f

t, 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A l though an appl i cant ’ s cr edi bl e t es t i m onym aybe s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n hi s bur den of pr oof w i thoutcorr obor at i on, the I J m aynonethel es s r equi r e corr obor at i on w hen the ap p li ca n t i s “re aso n ab lyex p ec ted” to d o so . D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 (3d C ir . 2003) ( en banc ) . I n deci di ng w hetherthe I J r eas onabl yr equi r ed corr obor at i ng evi dence , th is C o u rt e m p lo y s a th re e -p a rt in q u iry : “( 1 ) a n id e n tific a tio n o f f a c ts f o r w h ich it i s r eas onabl e t o expec tcorr obor at i on; ( 2) an i nqui ryas t o w hetherthe appl i canthas p ro v id e d in f

o rm a tio n c o rro b o ra tin g th o se f a c ts; a n d , if h e o r sh e h a s n o t, (3 ) a n a n a ly sis of w hetheran appl i canthas adequa t el yexpl ai ned w hys /he w as unabl e t o do s o. ” M u lang a v . A sh cro ft, 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). Pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) [I N A § 242( b) ( 4) ] , “[n] o courts hal l r ever s e a det erm i nat i on m ade bya tr i erof fa ctw i th r es pectt o the ava i l abi l i tyof corr obor at i ng e v id e n c e . . . u n les s th e c o u rt f in d s . . . th a t a r e a so n a b le trie r o f f a c t is c o m p e lled to concl ude thats uch corr obor at i ng evi dence i s unavai l abl e. ”W e thus need notdi s cus s the B oar d’ s al t ernat i ve hol di ng thatB ah’ s t es t i m onyw as 4 notcr edi bl e. B a h ’s m o tio n f

o r a sta yo f

re m o v a l is d e n ied a s m o o t. 5 5 B a h ’s a sy lu m c laim w a s b a se d o n th e e v e n ts o f Ju n e 2 0 0 3 . B a h tes tifie d th a t h is w i fe w as hom e w hen he w as arr es t ed, and hi s w i fe pa i d m oneyt o have hi m r el eas ed fr om pr i s on. A . R . 184. W hen as ked w hen he w as l as ti n cont actw i th hi s w i fe, B ah s t at ed that “sh e w rote m e a let ter bu t r eg u larl yw e sp ea k o v er the p h o n e.” A . R . 1 7 7 . B ec au se B ah ’s w i fe w as the onl yw i tnes s t o hi s arr es t , and w as i nvol ved i n pay i ng forhi s r el eas e, i tw as r eas onabl e forthe I J t o expec tcorr obor at i on fr om B ah’ s w i fe. B ah’ s onl yexpl anat i on for f a ilin g to p ro d u c e a n a f

f id a v it f ro m h is w if

e is th a t h e w a s n o t a s k e d to p ro d u c e o n e . A . R . 189. T he r ecor d does notcompel a fi ndi ng thatcorr obor at i on fr om B ah’ s w i fe w oul d be unava i l abl e. Si m i l ar l y , the I J expec t ed corr obor at i on fr om B ah’ s pol i t i cal party . B ah t es t i fi ed thathi s partyw as aw ar e of hi s arr es tand mi s tr eatm ent . A . R . 190. B ah pr oduced a cert i fi cat e att es t i ng t o hi s m ember s hi p i n the party , A . R . 235; and he t es t i fi ed thati f the p a rt yh a d b e e n a s k e d , it w o u ld h a v e s e n t c o rr o b o ra tio n re g a rd in g h is a rr e s t a n d d e te n tio n . A . R . 190. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , i tw as r eas onabl e forthe I J t o expec tcorr obor at i on f r o m th e p o l i t i c a l p a r ty. G i ven B ah’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entcorr obor at i ng evi dence , w e fi nd thatt he B I A ’ s hol di ng thathe fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v i d e n c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s g i v e n , 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. 4 5