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 10-7-2008 

# C a s tel 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 . 06-3868

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 " C as t el v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 405. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/405T he H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof * N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 06- 3868 REG I NA LD C ASTEL,

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 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 B I A N o. A 29- 630- 580 ( U . S. I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary29, 2008 

### B ef o re: S C IRIC A , Chi e

f J udge , REN D E L L , Circ ui t

J udge , an dT H O M P S O N , Di s tri c t J udge * ( Fi l ed : O ct ober7, 2008)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . R eginal d C ast el , a nati ve an d cit i zen o f H ai t i adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es as a l aw ful perm anen tres i den t , peti t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“ B IA ” ) o rd e r o f

re m o v a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s. F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. C a ste l en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s o n o r a b o u t S e p tem b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 2 , an d a d ju ste d h is s t atus t o thatof a l aw ful perm anentr es i denton A ugus t1, 1989. O n J ul y22, 1999, he pl eade d gui l tyt o fi r s tdegr ee a s s aul tand w as s ent ence d t o ei ghty ear s i n pr i s on. U pon compl et i on of hi s s ent ence , the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs i n I m m i gr at i on C our ton A ugus t22, 2005. C as t el w as char ged w i th bei ng an a lie n re m o v a b le f

o r c o m m ittin g a n a g g ra v a te d f e lo n y , IN A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) . C astel sou g h t w ith h o lding o f re m o v al un d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “C A T ”) . C as t el , w hos e fa m i l yr es i des i n the U ni t ed St at es , s uffe r s fr om acut e di abet es a n d re q u ire s tw ice -d a ilyin jec tio n s o f

m e d ica tio n to m a in tain h is h e a lth . U p o n re m o v a l to H ai t i , he w oul d l i kel ybe i m pr i s oned bec aus e of hi s convi ct i on. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge (“ IJ” ) f o u n d C a ste l w o u ld “ lik e lyd ie o f h is d ise a se ” b e c a u se o f “ lac k o f a d e q u a te m e d ica tio n . . . [a n d ] in h u m a n e p riso n c o n d iti o n s.” (A 1 4 ). T h e IJ f o u n d C a ste l m e t h is bur den underthe C A T t o s how he w i l l m or e l i kel ythan notbe s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e and3

or der ed C as t el ’ s r emoval defe r r ed. T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) ap p ea led th e IJ’s o rde r. T he B I A found C as t el di d nots at i s fyhi s bur den, r ej ect i ng the I J ’ s r el i ance on e x p e rt tes tim o n yf

ro m a n o th e r c a se a n d f

in d in g th e re c o rd d id n o t su p p o rt C a ste l’s c laim thathi s m edi cat i on w oul d be conf i s cat ed. T he B I A w as “notconvi nced thatthe p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e re sp o n d e n t m a ysu f f e r u n d e r th e se p riso n c o n d iti o n s is su f f icie n t to s ubs t ant i at e a f

i ndi ng thatthe H ai t i an governm entacqui es ces i n the ‘ t or tur e’ of cr i m i nal depor t ees w ho ar e det ai ned. ” The B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng defe rr al of r e mo v a l , a n d Ca s t e l f

i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. C as t el as s ert s err or , cont endi ng he ade quat el ypr oved he w oul d be t or tur ed i f he w er e r emoved t o H ai t i . H e ar gues thathe w i l l be depr i ved of e s s ent i al m edi ci ne and foo d, l eading t o p ai n an d suff eri ng that qual i fi es as t orture. “[T ]he C A T requi res a s how i ng of s peci fi c i nt entbefor e the courtcan make a f i ndi ng thata pet i t i onerw i l l be t or tur ed. ” P i er r e v. G onz al ez , 528 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) . I n P i erre , we h e ld : T he l ack of

m edi cal car e and l i kel ypai n thatPi err e w i l l exper i ence i s an unfor tunat e butuni nt ended c ons equenc e of the poorcondi t i ons i n the H ai t i an pr i s ons , w hi ch exi s tbeca us e of H ai t i ’ s extr eme pover ty . W e fi nd that this un i ntended con sequen ce i s not the type o f proscri bed pu rpose c o n t e mpl a t e d b yth e CA T.4

P i erre , 528 F. 3d at189. A s i n P i erre , C as t el di d notdemonstr at e H ai t i an author i t i es s p e c if ic a lly in te n d e d to in f

lic t p a in o r s u f

f e ri n g f o r a n yp u rp o s e p ro h ib ite d b yth e C A T . D e sp ite C a ste l’s m e d ica l co n d iti o n a n d th e h a rsh p riso n c o n d iti o n s h e w ill lik e ly exper i ence i n H ai t i , even i f C as t el coul d demonstr at e “know l edge thatpai n and s uffe r i ng w i l l be the ce r t ai n out come of conduct , ” id ., th is is n o t e n o u g h to s h o w s p e c if ic in te n t. See Pi er r e v. G onz al es , 502 F. 3d 109, 121–22 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( s peci fi c i nt entnotm et w her e pet i t i oner , a di abet i c, pr es ent ed evi dence of H ai t i ’ s har s h pr i s on condi t i ons and the l i kel i hood he w oul d di e w i thoutm edi cat i on and a pr operdi et ) . T her efor e, C as t el has not sa tisf ied h is b u rd e n u n d e r th e C A T a n d is n o t elig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. III . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the B I A ’ s or dervaca t i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on.