2005 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 8-2-2005 

# Ari a s 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 . 04-1999

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Ari as v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 757. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/757A t t orneyG ener al A l bert o R . G onzal es has been s ubs t i tut ed forform erA t t orney * G ener al J ohn A s hcr oft , the or i gi nal r es pondenti n thi s cas e, pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P . 4 3 (c). J udge N y gaar d as s um ed s eni orj udge s t atus 7/ 9/ 05.

** 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. 04- 1999

____________ W A LTE R A N TO N I O A M A Y A A RI A S, Pet i t i oner

v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, * A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E CU RI T Y; BU REA U O F I M M I GR ATI ON & CU STOM S ENFORC EM ENT,

R e sp o n d e n ts

____________ 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 97 133 248)

____________ A r gued J une 30, 2005 B e f o re : N Y G A A R D , S M IT H a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ** ( Fi l ed A ugus t2, 2005)2

R eena A ry a ( A r gued) H e b re w Im m ig ra n t A id S o c iety 333 Seventh A venue N ew Y or k, N Y 10001 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner D o u g las E . G insb u rg Jo h n M . M cA d am s, Jr. L y l e D . J ent zer( 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 tto rn e y s fo r R e sp o n d e n ts Seth M . M . St odder( A r gued) A k in , G u m p , S tra u ss , H a u e r & F e ld 2029 C enturyPar k E as t , Sui t e 2400 L os A ngel es , C A 90067 A tto rn e y fo r A m icu s-Ap

p e lla n t, H um an R igh t

s F i rst

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Pet i t i onerW al t erA nt oni o A m ay a A r i as appea l s fr om the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or deraff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he B I A found thatA m ay a A r i as w as i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( B ) b e c a u s e h e “ e n g a g e d i n t e rr o r i s ta c t i v i ty”3

w ith in the m ea n ing o f th e statute b ym ak ing p ay m en ts t o a C o lom b ian p ara m il it ary o r g a n i z a t i o n d e s i g n a t e d a s a F o r e i g n Te rr o r i s tOr g a n i z a t i o n ( “ F TO” ) p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1189. A m ay a A r i as ar gues thatan i nvol unt ar i nes s ordur es s defe ns e s houl d be i m pl i ed i n § 1182( a) ( 3) ( B ) ( i v) , and thathe has es t abl i s hed thatdefe ns e bec aus e he made the paym ent s t o t he FA R C i nvol unt ar i l y . B eca us e w e fi nd thatther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thatA m ay a A r i as m ade the paym ent s vol unt ar i l y , w e nee d n o ta d d r e s s h i s s t a tu t o r yc o n s tru c t i o n a r g u me n t , a n d wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. A s w e w ri t e sol el yfor the p art i es, and the fa ct s ar e kn ow n to them , w e w i l l dis cuss onl ythos e fa ct s pert i nentt o ourconcl us i on. A m ay a A r i as w as born i n B arr anqui l l a, C ol om bi a, and i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C ol om bi a. I n A pr i l 2003, us i ng a fr audul entvi s a, he att empt ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es atM i ami I nt ernat i onal A i rpor t . H e w as det ai ned bycus t om s offi ci al s and pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . H e then appl i ed foras y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. C ol om bi a i s a cons t i tut i onal , m ul t i partydemocr acyw i th tw o dom i nantpart i es : t he L ib e ra l an d th e C o n se rv a tiv e . B u t th e o rg a n ize d C o lo m b ian g o v e rn m e n t is re lativ e ly w eak a nd i n ongoi ng confl i ctw i th s ever al par ami l i t arygr oups , i ncl udi ng the R e v o lu tio n a ryA rm e d F o rc e s o f C o lo m b ia ( “ F A R C ” ). P a rticu lar lyre lev a n t to th is a p p e a l, th e F A R C is k n o w n to e x to rt so -c a lled “ w a r ta x e s” f ro m c iv ili a n s in o rd e r to f in a n c e its o p e ra tio n s. P a ym e n t o f w a r ta x e s is e sp e c iallyc o m m o n in se c tio n s o f C o lo m b ia4

contr ol l ed bythe FA R C . R efus al ori nabi l i tyt o paythes e w art axes i s vi ew ed as an ac tof p o lit ica l o p p o sitio n a n d o f ten re su lts in re p risa l. I n 1991, A m ay a A r i as j oi ned the C ol om bi an pol i ce f or ce a nd w as i ni t i al l ypos t ed i n an ant i - nar cot i cs bas e w her e hi s dut i es i ncl uded fi ght i ng guerr i l l as w ho bel onged t o t he F ARC. He q u i tth e p o l i c e f o r c e i n 1 9 9 4 a n d i n 1 9 9 5 , h i s g i r l f r i e n d ’ s b r o th e rg o th i m a j ob m anagi ng a fi s h farm i n E l M orr o ow ned byone G us t avo G ui t err ez. A tthe t i m e he t ook thi s j ob, A m ay a A r i as knew thatthe fa r m w as l ocat ed i n an ar ea c ontr ol l ed bythe F A R C . F rom his po l i ce exp eri ence, he al so kn ew that the F A R C w as a vi olent , t err ori st or gani zat i on. A m ay a A ri as w o rke d at th e E l M o rro f arm w ith o u t i n cide n t fo r sev era l y ea rs. In 1997, a man dr es s ed i n ci vi l i an att i r e ca m e t o the fa r m , gave A m ay a A r i as an enve l ope m a rk e d “ A rm e d R e v o lu tio n a ry F o rc e s o f C o lo m b ia ,” a n d to ld h im to g iv e it to G u ite rr e z . T he man di d notthr eat en A m ay a A r i as i n anyw ay . A m ay a A r i as pas s ed the enve l ope al ong t o G ui t err ez, w ho l at ert ol d hi m thati tcont ai ned a l ett erdemandi ng paym entt o the FA R C of a mont hl y“t ax” of 500, 000 pes os . G ui t err ez di r ect ed A m ay a A r i as t o payt he tax o n h is b e h a lf

w ith f u n d s p ro v id e d b yG u iterr e z . E a c h m o n th , ap p ro x im a telyf if ty a rm e d F A R C g u e rr illa s w o u ld c o m e to E l M o rr o , te n o f w h o m w o u ld c o m e to th e f a rm . W hen theyarr i ved, A m ay a A r i as w oul d paythem. T he FA R C guerr i l l as neverthr eat ened A m ay a A r i as , buthe w as cons t ant l yafr ai d of them and bel i eved theyw oul d ki l l hi m i f he di d notpaythem. A m ay a A r i as t es t i fi ed thathe neve rs upport ed oragr eed w i th the5

F A R C ’s po li ti ca l age n d a, bu t paid the m o n eyto the F A R C b ec au se h e w as “ li v ing v ery h a p p ilyw ith [ h is] f

a m ily ,” a n d “ w a s m a k in g g o o d m o n e ya t th e f a rm a n d .. . d o in g w e ll th e re .” In January20 00 , E l M orr o w as i nfil trat ed b ym em bers of t he U nit ed S el f-D efen se For ces of C ol om bi a ( “A U C ”) , a gr oup atodds w i th the FA R C . A U C m ember s compi l ed a l i s tof El M orr o r es i dent s w ho had made paym ent s t o the FA R C . I n the ea r l ym orni ng hour s of N ovember22, 2000, A U C m ember s att acke d the s us pect ed col l abor at or s ’ hom es and ki l l ed appr oxi m at el yei ght een pe opl e. A m ay a A r i as es cape d vi ol ence byhi di ng, but hi s gi r l fr i end’ s tw o br other s w er e ki l l ed, and A U C m ember s pus hed hi s gi r l fr i end ar ound beca us e theyw er e s ear chi ng forhi m . A m ay a A r i as , hi s gi r l fr i end and hi s daught er s u b s e q u e n t l yr e tu r n e d t o l i v e i n Ba rr a n q u i l l a . Th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e F ARC thr eat ened orharm ed A m ay a A r i as orhi s fami l yfol l ow i ng thei rr eturn t o B arr anqui l l a. T he I J deni ed A m ay a A r i as ’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval on gr ounds thatthe paym ent s he made t o the FA R C r ender ed hi m i nadmi s s i bl e under § 1182( a) ( 3) ( B ) . Sect i on 1182( a) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) pr ovi des thatan al i en i s i nadmi s s i bl e t o the U ni t ed St at es w her e he i s found t o have “ engage d i n a t err or i s tact i vi ty . ” Sect i on 1 1 8 2 (a )( 3 )( B )( iv )( V I) (c c ) d e f in e s “ e n g a g e in te rr o ri s t a c tiv ity” a s , in tera lia , the “comm i [s s i on of] an ac tthatthe ac t orknow s , orr eas onabl ys houl d know , aff or ds m a ter ial s u p p o rt, i n c lu d in g .. . fu n d s, tra n sf e r o f f u n d s o r o th e r m a ter ial f in a n c ial b e n e f

itDu r i n g th e t i me p e r i o d i n wh i c h Ama y a Ar i a s ma d e th e s e p a yme n t s , th e F ARC 1 w a s d e s ig n a te d b yth e U n ite d S ta te s S ta te D e p a rt m e n t a s a n F T O . See U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e W eb Page ( h t tp : //www . s t a t e . g o v / s / c t/r l s / f s / 2 0 0 3 / 1 7 0 6 7 . h t m) . As su ch , itw as a “terroristo rga n izati o n ” f o r pu rpo ses o f § 1 1 8 2 (a)(3)(B )(i v )(cc). 6 . . . t o a t err or i s tor gani zat i on des cr i bed i n cl aus e ( vi ) ( I ) or( vi ) ( I I ) [. ] ” T he I J found that 1 thi s pr ovi s i on appl i ed r egar dl es s of w hetherthe conduc tati s s ue w as vol unt ary , and ther efor e found thatA m ay a A r i as ’ s paym ent s , w hetherornotvol unt ary , fel l w i thi n the p rov isi o n an d m an d ated a f ind ing o f in ad m issi b il ity . T h e B IA ag ree d w ith the IJ’s s t atut orycons truct i on. E ven though t he I J and B I A focus ed thei rdi s cus s i ons on the s t atut orycons truct i on of § 1182( a) ( 3) ( B ) ( i v) , theyal s o m ade f actual fi ndi ngs thats uppor tthe A t t orney G ener al ’ s pr i m arycont ent i on on appea l thatA m ay a A r i as act ed vol unt ar i l yw hen he made paym ent s t o t he FA R C . T he B I A found that“the evi dence i n the r ecor d s ugges t s thatt he r es pondent ’ s actw as noti nvol unt ary . ” The B I A s peci fi cal l ynot ed thatthe I J had found thatA m ay a A r i as pas s ed moneyt o the FA R C atG ui t err ez’ s r eques t , thathe had notbeen thr eat ened bythe FA R C , and thathe di d notl eave hi s j ob on the fa r m ear l i erbeca us e of the moneyhe ea r ned ther e. T he B I A concl uded that“[p] art i cul ar l yas the r es pondent appar ent l ydi d notencount erFA R C once he l efthi s j ob and i n l i ghtof hi s r eas on fornot lea v in g h is jo b e a rlier , res p o n d e n t’s te stim o n yd o e s n o t re f lec t th a t h is a c ts w e re w h o lly in v o lu n ta ry.”7 II. W e beg i n o ur di scussi on w i th jur i sdi ct i on , w hich w e asses s de novo . See V alansi v . A sh c ro ft , 2 7 8 F .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of A m ay a A r i as ’ s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . We a g r e e wi th th e At t o rn e yGe n e r a l , h o we v e r , th a twe lack juri sd ict ion to rev iew A m ay a A ri as’s C A T claim b ec au se h e f ail ed to raise itb ef

o re th e B IA . S e e A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 330 F. 3d 587, 594 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( r eas oni ng t hat beca us e as y l um appl i cant“fa i l ed t o r ai s e [ ] i s s ue i n hi s appea l t o the B oar d, w e do not h av e jurisdicti o n to co n side r th e q u esti o n . ”). T he A t t orneyG ener al al s o ar gues that8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 2) ( D ) depr i ves us of j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatA m ay a A r i as i s i nel i gi bl e foras y l um b ec au se h e e n g ag ed in terroristac ti v ity . S ec ti o n 1 1 5 8 (b)(2 )(D ) pro v ides that “[ t] h ere s hal l be no j udi ci al r evi ew of a de t erm i nat i on of the A t t orneyG ener al unders ubpar agr aph ( A ) ( v) . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 2) ( D ) . A “det erm i nat i on of the A t t orneyG ener al under su b p ara g rap h (A )(v)” in clud es a d eterm ination that an ali en h as p rov ided m aterial su p p o rt to a te rr o ri s t o rg a n iz a tio n w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 3 )( B )( i) . I

d. at § 1 1 5 8 (b )(2 )(A )(v ). B e c a u se th e B IA f o u n d A m a y a A ria s in a d m iss ib le f o r e n g a g in g in t err or i s tact i vi tyunder8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) , i tappea r s thati tm ade j us tthe d e ter m in a tio n th a t § 1 1 5 8 (b )(2 )(D ) w ith d ra w s f ro m th e sc o p e o f

o u r ju risd ictio n to re v ie w . See B e llo u t v. A sh c ro ft , 3 6 3 F . 3 d 9 7 5 , 9 7 7 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).8

A m ay a A r i as count er s thatC ongr es s al t er ed the ef fec tof § 1158( b) ( 2) ( D ) i n the re c e n tly e n a c te d R E A L ID A c t o f 2 0 0 5 . See Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231 ( M ay11, 2005) . H e s peci fi cal l ydi r ect s us t o § 106( a) ( 1) of the R E A L I D A ct , w hi ch i ns ert ed the fol l ow i ng new § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) i nt o T i t l e 8: N othi ngin su b p ara g rap h (B ) or (C ), o r in a ny o th e r p ro v isio n o f th is chapt er(oth er tha n this section ) wh i c h l i mi t s o re l i mi n a t e s j u d i c i a lr e v i e w, s hal lbe cons tr ued as pr ecludi ng r evi ew of cons t i t ut i onalclai m s or ques t i ons of

law r ais ed upon a pet i t i on f orr evi ew f

iled w ith a n a p p ro p ria te courtof appe al s i n acc or dance w i th thi s s ect i on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e d isc u ss e d th is p ro v isio n in P apageor

gi ou v. G onz al es , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 4 9 0 4 5 4 (3 d C ir. Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ), sta tin g th a t it r efl ect s C ongr es s ’ s “i nt entt o r es t or e j udi ci al r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w p r e s e n t e d i n p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w o f

f i n a l r e m o v a l o r d e r s . ” 2 0 0 5 WL 1 4 9 0 4 5 4 , at *2 . W e f

o u n d that the n ew § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ) “rep ea led a ll juri sd ict ion al ba rs to o u r direct rev iew o f c o n sti tuti o n al claim s an d q u esti o n s o f law in f inal rem o v al ord ers otherthan thos e r emai ni ng i n 8 U . S. C . § 1252 ( e. g. , i n pr ovi s i ons otherthan ( a) ( 2) ( B ) or ( C ) ) fol l ow i ng the amendm entof thats ect i on bythe A ct . ” I d. T h e p l a i n t e r ms o f

§ 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) a r e s a t i s f i e d h e r e . S e c t i o n 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( D) cons t i tut es a pr ovi s i on of C hapt er12 “w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew [. ] ” A nd A m ay a A ri as’ s st atutorycon struct i on cl ai m that § 118 2(a) (3) (B )( i v) does n ot encom pass i nvol unt arym at er i al s uppor tcl ear l ypr es ent s “ques t i ons of l aw . ” W e ther efor e fi nd that9

w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatA m ay a A r i as i s i nel i gi bl e for asy lum u n d er § 1 1 8 2 (a)(3)(B )(i v ). III . W e turn now t o t he mer i t s . A s not ed, A m ay a A r i as ’ s s t atut orycons truct i on arg u m en t dep en d s o n h is establishing that there w as n o t sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thathe made paym ent s t o the FA R C vol unt ar i l y . “W e mustuphol d t he B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs i f theyar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Si ngh v. G onz al es , 406 F. 3d 191, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng S in g h -Ka u r v . A sh c ro ft , 385 F. 3d 293, 296 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e re v iew “ is e x tre m e lyd e f e re n tial, se tti n g a ‘h ig h h u rd le b yp e rm itt in g th e re v e rsa l o f f a c tu a l f in d in g s o n lyw h e n th e re c o rd e v id e n c e w o u ld compel a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o m ake a contr arydet erm i nat i on. ’ ” He C hun C hen v. A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n s an d interna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). W e fi nd thatA m ay a A r i as has fai l ed t o m eetthi s heavybur den. A m ay a A r i as w as neverexpr es s l ythr eat ened bythe FA R C , and ther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence thathe rem ai ned atthe fa rm no tbecau se he feared retri bu t i on from the F A R C , bu trather becau se he made good m oneyther e. T her e w as no evi dence thatA m ay a A r i as orhi s fami l yhad anyencount er s w i th t he FA R C aft ertheyl eftE l M orr o i n 2000, w hi ch s uppor t s the in f e re n c e th a t A m a y a A ri a s c o u ld h a v e le f t E l M o rr o e a rl ie r w ith o u t f e a r o f re tr ib u tio n . In d e e d , this in f

e re n c e , co u p led w ith A m a y a A ria s’s k n o w led g e o f th e F A R C ’s ta c tics , is su b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t A m a y a A ria s a n d h is f a m ilyh a d a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto10

le a v e E l M o rr o b e f

o re th e o n s e t o f

a n yp o s s ib le d u re s s . C

f. U n ite d S ta te s v . O n e 1 0 7 .9 A cr e Parce lof

Land Locat ed i n W

ar r en Tow ns hi

p, B r adf or d C ount

y, P a. , 898 F. 2d 396, 399 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( s t at i ng that“[i ] n a cr i m i nal l aw cont ext , . . . dur es s cont ai ns thr ee e l e me n t s [ , i n c l u d i n g ] ( 3 ) n o r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r tu n i tyt o e s c a p e th e th r e a t e n e d h a r m. ” ) . At the s ame t i m e, A m ay a A r i as fai l s t o poi ntus t o evi dence w hi ch w oul d compel us t o r eac h a c o n c l u s i o n c o n tr a r yt o th e BI A’ s f i n d i n g th a th e ma d e p a yme n t s t o th e F ARC vol unt ar i l y . W e ther efor e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thatA m ay a A r i as act ed vol unt ar i l yw hen he made paym ent s t o the FA R C , and w i l l deny the p et i t i on for r eview on this basi s.