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 12-29-2008 

# F alou N di a ye 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 . 08-3483

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 " F alou N d i a

ye v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 34. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/341 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- 3483

____________ FALO U N DI AY E, 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 o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 93 012 251) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e f f re yR o m ig

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

D ece m ber29, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

Fal ou N di ay e, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r e mo v a l o f

th e Bo a r d o f

I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we2

w i l l 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. N d iaye is a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f S e n e g a l. H e c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 8 8 a s a v isito r w ith p e rm iss io n to sta yf o r 3 0 d a y s. In 2 0 0 5 , N d iaye w a s c o n v icte d in th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f N e w Y o rk o f

c o n sp ira c yto di s tr i but e her oi n and pos s es s i on w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e her oi n. H e r ece i ved a 70- m o n th p riso n se n ten c e . In 2 0 0 7 , a n o tice to a p p e a r w a s is su e d c h a rg in g N d iaye w ith r emovabi l i tybeca us e he ha d been c onvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on. N di ay e admi t t ed the al l egat i ons i n the not i ce t o appea r , and the I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) f o u n d h i m r e mo v a b l e a s c h a r g e d . Nd i a y e a p p l i e d f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d re lie f

u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). N d i a ye c l a i m e d a f

e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n i n S e n e g a l o n a c c o u n to f h i s h o m o s e x u a l i ty. N di ay e t es t i fi ed thathe w as m arr i ed i n Senegal i n 1973 and had s even c h ild re n . H e sta ted th a t h e k n e w th a t h e w a s g a ya t th e a g e o f 1 4 , b u t th a t h e d id n o t tell any one. I n 1988, N di ay e fe l tthathe coul d nothi de hi s hom os exual i tyanyl onger , and he a n n o u n c e d to h is f

a m ilyth a t h e w a s g a y . N d iaye s tate d th a t h is f a m ilyw o u ld n o t sp e a k to hi m , and he l efthi s hom e. N di ay e l eftSenegal tw o m onths l at er . N di ay e furthert es t i fi ed thathe had no homose xual r el at i ons hi ps i n Senegal , and thathe has had tw o hom os exual re latio n sh ip s in th e U n ited S tate s. N d iaye f e a rs th a t h e w ill b e h a rm e d if h e re tu rn s to S e n e g a l.3 T he I J found N di ay e i nel i gi bl e foras y l um beca us e he w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , and i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval beca us e hi s drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e i s a “pa r t i cul ar l ys er i ous cr i m e” unde rthe i m m i gr at i on s t atut e. T he I J fur therfound no cl earpr obabi l i tyof t or tur e i f N di ay e i s r emoved t o Senegal . T he I J expl ai ned thatt he 2006 C ountr yR eporton H um an R i ght s Pr act i ces forSenegal r efl ect ed di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns thom os exual s and i nt ol er ance i n the cul tur e, butno l i kel i hood of t or tur e. A l though N d iay e b eli ev ed h o m o sex u ali tyw as a crim e in S en eg al, the IJ n o ted th at th e C o u n try R e p o rt sta ted to th e c o n tra ry . T h e IJ r e c o g n ize d th a t N d iaye’s c a se h a d sy m p a th e tic fac t or s , i ncl udi ng thathe w as 63 y ear s ol d, thathe had be en her e for20 y ear s , and thathe w oul d r eturn t o a countr ythatdi d nott ol er at e homosexua l i ty , butthe I J concl uded that N di ay e w as notel i gi bl e foranyform of r el i ef unde rthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct o rf o rp r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T.

T he B I A aff

i r m ed, w i thoutopi ni on, the r es ul tof the I J ’ s deci s i on, m aki ng th e IJ ’s d e c is io n th e f

in a l a g e n c yd e te rm in a tio n u n d e r t h e re g u la tio n s . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )(4 ). T h is p e tit io n f o r re v iew f

o llo w e d . T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s f iled a m o tio n to 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, w hi ch has been r efe rr ed t o us for di s pos i t i on. T he G overnm entar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval beca us e N di ay e w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony , and he ha s not r ai s ed a l egal orcons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o the B I A ’ s deci s i on. W e agr ee. W i th the4

e x c e p t i o n o f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w, we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a fi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed an ag gravat ed fe l on y . 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2) (C ), (D ); see al so P apag eorgi ou v. G on zal es, 413 F. 3d 356, 357- 58 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . N di ay e has notr ai s ed i n hi s br i ef a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m ora ques t i on of l aw . T he G overnm entcorr ect l ys t at es thateac h i s s ue r ai s ed by N di ay e r el at es t o i s s ues of fa ctand ques t i ons r egar di ng the cons i der at i on, i nt erpr et at i on, a n d w e ig h t o f

th e re c o rd e v id e n c e . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antthe G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on and w i l l di s m i s s t he pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.