### F OR P UBLICATION



## UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

S A T H E E S K

U M A R 

### A N N A C H A M Y 

### , AKA Sathees Annachamy

, P etitioner
,

v

.

E R I C 

### H. H O L D E R 

### , J R 

### ., Attorney General, Respondent

. N o. 07-70336

Ag ency No. A200-041-850

ORDER AND AMENDED OPI NI ON

O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B oard of I

mmig ration Appeals

Arg ued and Submitted September 2, 2011—San F rancisco, California

F iled J uly 3, 2012 Amended Aug

ust 19, 2013

B efore: Ray

mond C. F isher and J ohnnie B . Rawlinson, Circuit J udg es, and Richard Mills, District J udg e

. *



### O pinion by

J udg e F isher

* T h e Ho n o rab le Rich ard Mills, Sen io r Un ited States District J u d g e f or th e Cen tral District o f

Illin o is, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n

.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 2

SUMMARY * *



### Im m igration

The p a nel amended its opinion fi l e d o n J u ly 3, 2012;
g ranted a petition for rehearing ; d enied a p e t i t ion for rehearing en b anc on behalf of the court; and ordered that no future petitions will be entertained.

T h e panel denied a petition for review of the B oard o f I mmig r a tion Appeals’ deni a l of asy lum and withholding o f removal based on the mat e r i al support terrorist provision o f 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(VI ). The panel held t h a t the material support bar does not include an implied e x c e ption for individuals who assist org aniz ations eng ag ed in leg itimate political v iolence or w ho provide suppor t u n d er duress.

I n the amended opinion, the p anel added a statement that because Cong ress u

pdated the totalitarian party membership provision in the same leg islation in which it created the

m a t e r ial support b ar, it w as appropriate to presume tha t Cong r ess was aware of the e x isting leg isla t i o n

. The panel also added a statement that the waiver provision i s still relevant in determining earlier cong ressional intent, even thoug h the waiver provision was n ot ena c t e d until 15 y ears after the creation of the material support bar.

** T h is su m m ary co n stitu

t es n o p ar t o f t h e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 3

COUNSEL

Visuvanathan Rud rakumaran, L aw Office of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran (arg

ued), New York, New York, f o r Petitioner.

Tony W est, Assistant Attorney Gener al, United States Department of J ustice; M i c h ael P. L indemann, Assistant Director; Ethan B. K a nter (arg ued), Senior L itig ation Counsel, Office of I mmig ration L i t i g a t i o n , Wa s h i ng ton, D.C., for Respondent.

Sean Riordan, ACL U of San Dieg o & I mperial Counties, San Dieg o, California, f

or Amici Curiae Harvard I mmig ration a n d Refug ee Clinic and American Civil L iberties Union of San Dieg o & I mperial Counties.

ORDER

The opinion filed J uly 3, 2012, and reported a t 6 86 F. 3d 7 2 9 ( 9 t h Cir. 2 012), is amended. The amended o pinion i s filed concurrent with this Order.

W ith the amended opinion, the p anel has v oted to G RANT Petitioner’s petition for rehearing

. J udg e s Fi s h e r and Rawlinson have v o ted to deny t h e sug g estion for rehearing en banc and J udg e Mills so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the sug g e stion for rehearing en banc and n o active judg e has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. F ed. R. App. P. 35.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 4

Petitioner’s sug g esti o n for r ehearing en banc, filed September 14, 2012, is DENIED

.

No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OP INION

F I SHER, Circuit J udg e :

Satheeskumar Annacha m y petitions for review of a decision of the B oard of I mmig ration Appeals (B I A) deny ing him a sy lum and withholding of removal because he provided material support to a terrori s t o r g aniz ation, in violation o f 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B ) (iv)(VI ). Annachamy arg ues that the BI A erred by a

pply ing the material support bar because ( 1 ) the org aniz ation h e supported was eng ag ed in leg itimate political violence and (2) h e provided support under dure s s. W e h o l d that the material support bar does not include a n implied ex ception for individuals who assist org a ni zations
eng ag ed in leg itimate p o litical v iolence or who provide support under d u r e s s. W e thus deny Annachamy ’ s petition for review.

I.

Annachamy is a native and citiz en of Sri L anka. I n a hearing before an immig ratio n judg e ( I J ), Annachamy testified that b etween 1986 and 2004 he was arrested several times b y the Sri L ankan arm y on suspicion that he was involved with the L iberation Tig ers of Tamil Eelam (L TTE),

a militant o rg aniz ation that w as then a t war with the Sri

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 5

L ankan g o vernment. 1 

### Each time, the army detained h im for
many weeks, interrog ated him and tortured him, including beating h im with we apons while he was hung upside d own, inserting a stick in his rectum, placing a bag soa k e d i n g asoline over his head and forcibly submerg ing his head into
water.

Annacham y testified that he was never a member o f the L TTE and was opposed to it. On several occasions, however, he was forced to a ssist L TTE members. I n 1992, for instance, L TTE members came to h is house and demanded that h e join them. Annachamy refused and, upon t h r e a t o f force, promised to g ive them money in the future. I n 1996, he p aid L TTE members 2000 rupees (approx imately $37). On other occasions, L TTE members blindfolded A nnachamy and took him to a L T TE camp, where t h e y f o rced him to cook, dig
t r e n c h es, fill sandbag s and help build fences. Each time h e

was taken to perform these activities, he was kept under strict watch and there was no possibility of escape. Annachamy believed that he would have been killed if he tried to escape

or seek help from the p o lice. He has had no contact with the L TTE since 1997, when he moved f rom his home town. Annacha m y t e stified that he was not aware that the L TTE

w a s considered a terrorist org a niz ation when he assist e d them.

After being d e tained by the Sri L ankan army ag a i n in 2004, Anna c h a m y w e n t into hiding

. He left Sri L anka a nd

a r r ived in the United States in 2005. Upon his arrival, t h e I mmig r a tion and Naturaliz a tion Service, now the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS), initiated removal proceeding s.

1 B ecau se b o th th e I J a n d B IA f o u n d th at A

n n ach am y w as a cred ib le

w itn ess, w e assu m e h is testim o n y w as tru e.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 6

Annachamy conceded that he was removable based on h is unlawful presence in the United S t a tes, but f iled an application for asy lum, withholding of removal a nd protection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT).

After a h e a ring

, an I J g ranted Annachamy asy lum a nd wit h h olding of removal. The I J found that, despite some inconsistencies, Annachamy testified in a c redible m anner. Rely ing on A nnachamy ’s application, testimony a n d State Department reports o n the c on d itions in Sri L anka, the I J found that Annachamy had demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution bas ed on a protected g round. The I J also f o u nd that Annachamy was n ot p recluded from obtaining relief even thoug h he g ave assistance to the L TTE, because he was forced to do so. The I J found that Annachamy ’ s “life

or freedom would h ave been thr e a t e ned” if he had not assisted the L TTE.

T h e BI A reversed. I n an unpublished o p inion, the B I A accepted the I J ’s credibility d etermin a t ion and found that there was “no question” that Annachamy had es t ablished a well-founded f

ear of f uture persecution that went unrebutted. The BI A found, however, that the I mmig ration a nd Nationality Act (I

NA) b arred Annachamy from obtaining

a s y l u m o r withholding of r emoval because he had provided material support to a terrorist org aniz ation. The B I A instead
g ranted A nnachamy deferra l o f removal under CAT a nd remanded to the I J to c omplete identity

, law e nforcement o r

s e c u r i t y e x a m i n a t i o n s r e q u i r e d u n d e r 8 C

. F

. R

.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 7

§ 1003.1(d)(6). 2 

### Annachamy petitions for review of that decision.

II.

W e have jurisdiction to r eview the B I A’s final order den y i n g asy lum and withholding o f removal under 8 U .S.C. § 1252. See Li
, 656 F .3d a t 9 0 4 (“ [ W ]here the B I A denies relief and remands pursuant to § 1 003.1(d)(6) for backg r ound checks required for alternative relief, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the final order deny ing relief.”). “Our review is confined to the B I A’s decision ex c ept to the ex tent the B I A incorpora t e d t h e I J ’s decision.” Id. at 900–01. W e review de novo constitutional and other questions of law. See Khan v

. H

older

, 584 F

. 3d 773, 7 76 (9th Cir. 2009). W e afford the B I A’s unpublished o pinion Skidmore d eference, meaning “we ‘ex amine the validity of the B I A’s reasoning

, its thoroug hness, and overall p ersuasiveness,’ and g ive it w eig ht according ly .” United States v. Casasol a , 670 F .3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting G arcia-Quintero v. G onzales

, 455 F .3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 2006)).

2 B ef o re g ran tin g an ap p l i c a t i on f o r relief o r p ro tectio n f

ro m rem o v al, DHS m u st co m plete certain id en tity

, l aw en f o rcem en t an d s ecu rity

ex am in atio n s. S

ee 8 C.F.R. § 1 0 0 3 .4 7

. U n d er 8 C.F.R. § 10 0 3.1 (d )(6 ),

“ [w ]h ere b ack g ro u n d ch eck s are r e q u i r ed b u t h av e n o t y et b een

co m pleted

, th e B IA m

u st eith er issu e an

o rd er rem an d in g th e case to th e IJ w ith in stru ctio n s to allo w th e DHS to co m p lete th e b ack g ro u n d ch eck s,

o r p ro v id e n o tice to bo th p arties th at th e case i s o n h o ld p en d in g

co m pletio n o f th e b ack g ro u n d ch eck s.” Ju n min g Li v. Ho ld

er , 6 5 6 F.3 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 2 (9 th

Cir. 2 0 1 1 ).

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 8

III.

An alien who has en g a ge d in terrorist activities is inelig ible f

or asy lum, withholding of remov al a nd withholding under CAT, bu t r e m ains e lig ible for deferral o f removal under CAT. See Haile v. H o l d e r , 658 F .3d 1122, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 

### W e have previously rec og niz ed that t h e I

N A “defines ‘eng ag [ ing ] in terrorist activity ’ broadly .” Khan

, 584 F .3d at 777 (alteration in orig inal). The definition includes committing

, planning or g athering information about potential targ ets for a terrorist activity

, a nd soli c i t i n g funds or individuals for a terrorist activity o r terrorist o rg aniz ation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B ) ( iv). An alien also eng ag es in terrorist activity by

commit[ ting ] an act that the actor kno w s , o r reasonably should know, affords material

s u p p o r t , i n c l u d i n g a s a f e h o u s e , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , f u n d s , transfer of f

u n d s or other material financial benefit, false documentation o r identification,
weapons (including chemical, biolog ical, o r radiolog ical weapons), ex plosives, or training

—
(aa) f or the commission of a terrorist activity ;

3 S ee a l so 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 8 2 (a)(3 )(B )(i)(I) (p ro v id in g th at an alien w h o h as “ en g ag ed in terro rist activ i ty ” i s in ad m issib le); id

. § 1 1 5 8 (b )(2 )(A )(v ) (p ro v id in g t

h at an alien d escrib ed in § 1 1 8 2 (a)(3 )(B )(i)(I) is in elig ib le f or asy lu m ); id

. § § 1 2 2 7 (a)(4 )(B )

, 1 2 3 1(b )(3 )(B )(iv ) (sam e f o r w i th h o ld i n g of

rem o v al); 8 C.F.R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (d )(2 ) (sa m e f o r w ith h o ld in g u

n d er th e CA T ); 8 C.F.R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 7 (a) (p ro v id in g th at an alien elig ib le fo r CA T
p ro tectio n b u t in elig ib le f o r CA T w ith h o ld in g sh all be g ran ted def erral of

rem o v al).

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 9

(bb) to any individual who the a ctor knows, o r reasonably should know, has comm i t ted o r plans to commit a terrorist activity ;

(cc) to a te r r o rist org aniz a tion described in subclause (I ) or ( I I ) o f clause (vi) or to any member of such an org aniz ation; or

(dd) to a terrorist or ga niz ation described in clause (vi)(I I I ), or to any memb e r of such an org aniz ation, u nless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence th a t the
actor d id not know, and should not reasonably have k now n , that the org aniz ation was a terrorist org aniz a tion.

Id. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(VI )

.

“The statute a lso defines ‘ terrorist org aniz ati on’ broadly

. ” Khan

, 584 F .3d at 777. The definition includes org aniz ations desig nated as a “ terrorist org a niz a ti o n ” by the Secretary o f State, in consultation with the appr o p r iate o f ficials, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(vi)(I )–(I I )

— often referred to a s Tier I and Tier I I terrorist org aniz ations — and any “g roup o f
t w o o r more individuals, w hether org aniz ed or n ot, which
eng ag es in, or has a subg roup w h i ch e n g ag es in, [ terrorist activities]

, ” id. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(vi)(I I I )

— referred to a s Tier I I I terrorist org aniz a tions.

Annachamy d o es n o t d ispute that he materially assisted the L TTE, and the p arties ag ree that the L TTE qualified as a

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 10

Tier I I I org aniz atio n a t the time he assisted it. 4 

### Annachamy challeng es the B I A’s decision on two g rounds, however. He
arg ues, first, that t h e m a terial support bar does not apply to him because the L TTE w as eng ag ed in leg itimate pol i t ical violence; and, second, that the bar does not apply to him b e c a u se he supported the L TTE under duress. W e consider each arg ument in turn.

A. P olitical Of

f ense Exception.

Annachamy contends that the materia l s upport bar does
not apply to him because the L TTE was eng ag ed in “leg i t i m a te political violence.” Our decision in Khan forecloses this arg

ument. See 584 F .3d at 781–85.

I n that case, the B I A found a n alien inelig ible for asy lum and withholding o f removal because he had eng ag ed in terrorist a ctivities by soliciting f u n ds for a terrorist
org aniz atio n , i n v i o l a

t i on of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(IV). See id. at 776. T he alien arg u ed on ap p e a l that he did not assist a “terrorist org aniz ation” bec a u se “the definition o f ‘terrorist activity ’ under § 118 2 ( a)(3)(B )(iii) incorporates international law, and thus ex cludes l e g itimate armed resistance ag ainst m i l i t a r y targ ets.” Id. at 7 81. W e rejected this arg u ment b ecause the plain lang uag e of the I NA allowed for no such ex ception. See id.

Annachamy advances the same arg ument w e r e jected in Khan

, ex cept he concedes the L TTE is a terrorist org aniz ation

4 A n n ach am

y d o es n o t arg u e th at h is su p p o r t o f t h e L T T E w as n o t “m a t e r i a l ,” so w e n eed n o t reso lv e th e issu e o f w h eth er A n n ach am

y ’ s actio n s co n stitu

te “ m aterial su

p p o rt” o f th e L T T E w ith in th e m ean i n g o f th e statu te.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 11

and thus that it e n ga g ed in terrorist activity

. Rather than
arg uing ther e is a “political offense” ex ception to the definition of “terrorist activity ,” Annachamy w ould have us locate the ex ception in the material support bar. W e decline to do so.

The material support b ar provides t h at any alien w ho “commit[ s] an act that the actor k nows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a saf e house, transporta t i on, communications, funds, transfer of funds o r other material f

i n ancial benefit, f

alse documentation o r iden tification, weapons (including chemical, biolog ical, o r radiolog ical weapons), ex p losives, or training ” to a te r r o r ist
org aniz ation has eng ag ed in terro r ist activity

. 8 U .S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(VI ). Annachamy provides no tex tual hook for h is arg ument that the material support bar does not apply to political offenses. He arg ues only that deny ing relief
to aliens who have participated in political o ff e n ses would violate the United States’ oblig ations u nder international law and would lead to troubling results, w h e r e b y , for instance, individuals who resisted the Naz is w ould be barred from obtaining a sy lum. W e considered and rejected both o f these
arg uments in Khan

. See 584 F

. 3d at 781–84; see also In re S

K-
, 23 I

. & N. Dec. 9 36, 94 1 (B. I .A. 2006) (“[ W ] e find that Cong r ess intentionally drafted the terrorist bars to r elief very broadly

, to include even those people described as ‘freedom fig hters,’ and it d id not intend to g ive us discretion to c reate

ex c e pt ions f

or members of org aniz ations to which our Government mig ht be sy

mpathetic.”). W e therefore h old that

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 12

there is no political offense ex ception to the material support bar. 5



### B. Duress Exception.

Annachamy also arg u es that he is not barred from obtaining asy lum o r withholding of removal because the material support b a r does n ot apply to aliens who supported terrorist activities or org aniz ations under duress. W e do not believe that is a permissible reading of the statute.

W e beg in with the tex t of the stat ute. Notably

, t h e material support bar itself does not provid e a n

ex c e ption for material support that is involuntary or coerced. Althoug h silence is certainly n ot conclusive as to whether

an ex ception e x ists, see Negusie v. Holder

, 555 U.S. 511, 518 (2009); cf. H

older v. Gutierrez
, 132 S. Ct. 2011, 2019 (2012) (“W e cannot read a silent st a t u t e a s requiring (not merely allowing ) imputation just because that r ule would be family -friendly

. ”), the statutory f r a m e work makes clear that n o ex ception was intended. F irst, in the material support bar Cong ress ex plicitly carved o u t a n ex ception, in the case of Tier I I I terrorist o rg aniz ations, for aliens w ho “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the

5 In Kh a n , w e ack

n o w led g ed t ha t th ere m ay b e an ex cep tio n t o th e d ef in i tio n o f “ terro rist activ i ty ” w h ere “ th e law of th e co u n try in q u estio n in co rp o rates in tern atio n al law s u c h t hat th e co n d u ct in q u estio n is n o lo n g er ‘ u n law f u l’ u n d er t

h e co u n try ’ s do m estic law .” 5 8 4 F

. 3 d at 7 8 1

. A n n ach am

y arg u es th at th i s ca s e sh o u l d be rem an d ed t o th e B IA to

co n sid er w

h eth er Sri L an k a h as in co rp orated in tern atio n al law

, s u ch th at th e L T T E’ s activ ities w ere n o t u n law f u l u n d er Sri L an k an

d o m estic law

. B ecau se A n n ach am

y h as n o t p ro v id ed an y e v id en ce th at Sri L an k a h as in co rp o rated su ch

in tern atio n al law , w e d eclin e h is in v itatio n to rem an d

.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 13

org aniz ation w as a terrorist org aniz ation.” 8 U .S. C. § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(V I ) (d d). That Cong ress included this

ex p ress ex ception w ithin the provision is some indication that it would have likewise ex pressly ex cepted involuntary support if it intended to do so. 6

6 In su p p o rt o f A n n ach am

y ’ s p etitio n f

o r reh earin g , a m i c i Harv ard Im m i g ran t R ig h t s C lin ic an d th e A m erican Civ i l L ib erties Un io n arg u e th at th e w o rd “ u

n law f u l” f ro m th e statu te’ s d ef

in itio n o f “ terro rist activ ity ”
creates an i m

p licit d u ress ex cep tio n b ecau se “ u n law f u l ” m ean s

“ crim in ally cu lp ab le” an d d u ress i s a d e fe n se to crim in al liab ility

. W e d isag ree. First, “ u n l a w fu l” (w h ich is n o t d ef

in ed in th e statu te) m erely

m ean s co n t r a r y t o l aw , n o t n ecessarily co n trary to crimin a l law

. Man y

areas o f law

, in clu d in g im m ig ratio n , u se th e w o rd u n law fu l w i th o u t d en o tin g crim in al l i a b i l ity

. Co m p a re 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 8 2 (a)(9 )(B )(ii) (d eem in g alien s to b e u n la wfu lly p resen t if t h ey rem ain i n t h e Un ited S t ates af t er th e ex p iratio n o f th eir au th orized p erio d ) w ith Arizo n a v. Un ited Sta tes , 1 3 2 S. Ct. 2 4 9 2
, 2 5 0 5 (2 0 12 ) (n o tin g th at “ it is n o t a crim e f o r a r e m o v a b l e alien to rem ain p resen t i n th e U n ited States”); see a l so 2 9 U.S.C. § 6 2 3 (m ak in g it “ u n l aw f u l,” b u t n o t crim in al, to d iscrim in ate

o n th e basis of ag e); 5 U.S.C. § 7 0 6 (2 ) (p ro v id in g th at ag en cy actio n th at is arb itrary

o r cap ricio u s is “ u n law f

u l”).

Seco n d

, ev en assu

m in g “ u n law f

u l” m ean s “ crim in ally cu lp ab le,” th e

w o r d a p p ears in th e def in itio n o f “ terro rist activ ity ,” b u t th e m aterial

su p p o rt b ar ap p ears in th e d ef in itio n of “ en g a ge in terro rist activ ity ,” an d th is su b sectio n d o es n o t i n clu d e t h e w o rd u n law f

u l. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 8 2 (a)(3 )(B )(i), (iii). “ T er r o r i st activ ity ” d ef

in es acts of terro rism

, su ch

as h ij ack in g , assassin atio n , etc., b u t “ en g ag e in terro rist activ i ty ” d escrib es actio n s an in d iv i d u al m ig h t tak e, d irectly or i n d irectly

, to aid in terro rism

. Read in g th e en tire statu to ry sch em e t o g eth er rev e a l s t h at alth o u g h th e g en eric act o f t erro rism m u st be an u

n law f u l act, th e alien ’ s co m

m issio n

o f o r su p p o rt f o r th at act o f terro rism o r terro rist o rg an izatio n n eed n o t b e crim in ally

liab le f o r th e m aterial su

p p o rt b ar to ap p ly

.

Fin ally

, ev en if crim in al cu lp ab ilit y w ere req u ired f o r th e m aterial

su p p o rt bar to ap p ly

, d u ress d o es n o t ex cu s e th e m aj o rity o f acts listed in th e d ef in itio n o f “ terr o r i s t activ i ty .” D u ress d o es n o t ex cu se m u rd er or

e v e n r e d u ce m

u rd er to m an slau g h ter. S ee Un ited S ta tes v. L a Fleu r ,

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 14

Second, as the B I A o b served, Cong ress created an ex plicit involuntariness ex ception in a n eig hboring subsection. Section 1182(a)(3)(D)(i) provides that “[ a] ny immig r a nt w ho is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist

o r any other totalitarian p arty (or subdivision or affili a t e thereof), domestic or foreig n, is inadmissible.” Co n gr ess specified that the bar is inapplica ble “if the alien establishes

. . . that the membership o r affiliation is or was involuntary .” I

d

. § 1 182(a)(3)(D)(ii). “‘[ W ]here Cong ress includes p articular lang uag e in one section of a statute but omits it in another section o f t h e same Act, it is g enerally presumed that Cong ress acts intentionally and p u rposely in the d isparate inclusi on or ex clusion.’” INS v. CardozaFonseca
, 480 U.S. 421, 432 (1987) (alteratio n i n o rig inal) (quotin g Russello v. U

nited S tates , 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983));

see also Fedorenko v. Unit e d States
, 449 U .S. 490, 512 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( h o l ding

, where Cong ress had included a voluntarin e s s requirement in one subsection of the statute, but not another, that “ the deliberate o mission of the word ‘ v o l u n t ary ’

. . .

9 7 1 F.2 d 2 0 0
, 2 0 6 (9 th Cir. 19 9 1 ). A n d in m an y j u risd ictio n s , d u ress d oes

n o t ex cu se attem

p ted m u rd er o r aid i n g an d ab ettin g m u rd er eith er. S

ee,

e. g

. , Peo p le v. Vieira
, 10 6 P .3 d 9 90
, 1 0 0 5

– 0 7 (Cal. 2 0 05 ); S t a te v. Ma n n erin g , 4 8 P .3 d 3 6 7
, 3 7 1 (W ash

. Ct. A p p

. 20 0 2 ). A ll o f th e acts listed in th e d ef in itio n o f “ terro rist activ ity ” in v o lv e eith er m u rd er o r a situ atio n

w h ere an in n o cen t p erso n ’ s lif e is p l a c e d in g rav e d an g er, see 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2 (a)(3 )(B )(iii), so ev en if th e alien ’ s su p p o rt f o r th e terro rist act h ad
to b e crim i n a l l y cu lp ab le, du ress w ou ld n o t n ecessarily n eg ate th at

cu lp ab i l ity

. In sh o rt, th e sin g l e, u n d ef in ed u se of th e w o rd “ u n law f u l ” in

a d i ffe r e n t su

bsectio n can n ot w ith stan d t h e w eig h t am ici p lace o n it: th e im p o rtatio n o f th e en tire d o ctrin e o f crim i n al l a w , i nclu d in g th e

o p p o rtu n ity

to p resen t all af

f irm ativ e d ef

en ses.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 15

compels the conclusion” that Cong ress did not intend to adopt a voluntariness requirement in the latter subsection). 7



### Third, the ex istence of an administrative waiver provision in the I N A “weakens [Annachamy ’s] arg ument that the B I A ’s reading of the statutory lang uag e is overly broad, because the broad statutory d ef

i n i t ion is combined with a discretionary waiver by e x ecutive branch o f f i cials.” Khan

, 584 F .3d at 782. The waiver provision states:

The Secretary of State, after c onsultation with the A ttorney General and the Secret ary o f Homeland S e curity

, or the Secretary o f Homeland Security

, after consultation with the Sec retary of State and the Attorney General, may d etermine in such Secretary ’s sole u n reviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B ) of this section [ defining “terrorist activities”] sh a l l not apply with respect to an alien w i t hin the scope of that subsection o r that subsection (a)(3)(B ) (vi)(I I I ) of t his

s e c t i o n [ d e f

i n i n g T i e r I I I t e r r o r i s t org aniz ation] shall not a

pply to a g roup within the scope of that subsecti o n, e x cept that no such waiver may be e x tended to an alien who

7 A n n ach am

y p o i n ts o u

t th at th e to talitarian b ar w as en a c t e d s e v e r al
y ear s b e fo r e th e m aterial su p p o rt b ar, as th e B IA ack n o w led g ed

, bu t w e

m u st “ assu m e th at Co n g ress is aw are o f ex istin g law w h en i t p asses leg i slatio n .” S

ee Miles v. Ap ex Ma r in e Co rp

. , 4 9 8 U.S. 1 9
, 3 2 (1 9 9 0 ). P resu m in g co n g ressio n al aw aren ess of ex istin g l eg islatio n i s p articu larly
ap p ro p riate h ere becau se Co n g ress u p d ated th e to talitarian p a r t y

m e m b ersh ip p ro v isio n in th e sam e leg islatio n in w h i ch it created t h e

m aterial s u p p o r t b a r. See H.R. Co n f

. Rep

. N o

. 1 0 1

- 9 5 5, 1 9 9 0 W L 2 0 1 6 1 3 , at § 6 0 1.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 16

i s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f s u b s e c t i o n (a)(3)(B )(i)(I I ) [i.e. an alien w ho the ex ecutive knows, or has reasonable g round to believe, is
eng ag ed in o r l ikely to e ng ag e in terrorist

a ctivity after entry ], no such waiver may b e

ex tended to a

n alien w ho i s a member o r rep r e s e n t a t i v e o f

, h a s voluntarily a

nd knowing ly en gag ed in or e ndorsed o r

e s p o used or persuaded o thers to endorse o r espouse or support terrorist a ctivity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowing ly received military -ty

pe t r a i n i n g f

r o m a t e rrorist
org aniz ation that is [ desig nat ed as a Tier I o r I I terrorist org aniz at i o n ]
, and no such w aiver
may b e ex tended to a g roup that has eng ag ed
t e rrorist activity ag ainst the United States o r another democratic country o r that has
purpose f u lly e n g a g ed in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians.

8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(B )(i). 8 

### As we recog niz ed in Khan

, this deleg ation of a

uthority to the sp e cified Secretaries reflects

8 T h e w aiv er p ro v i sio n w as o rig in ally p assed as p art o f th e Real ID A ct

o f 2 0 0 5

. S

ee P u b. L

. No

. 1 0 9

- 13
, § 1 0 4
, 1 1 9 Stat. 2 3 1
, 3 0 9 (2 0 0 5 ). It w as

am en d ed t o its cu rren t f o rm b y th e Co n so lid ated A p p ro p riatio n s A ct, 2 0 0 8

. See P u

b

. L

. No

. 11 0

- 1 6 1, § 69 1 (a), 1 2 1 S t at 1 8 4 4 (2 0 0 7 ). A lth o u g h th e w aiv er p ro v i s io n w as n o t en act e d u n t i l 1 5 y ears af ter t h e creatio n of th e m aterial su

pp o rt b ar, th e w aiv er p ro v isio n is still relev an t in d eterm in in g th e earlier co n g ressio n al in ten t. See Red Lio n Bro a d ca s tin g Co

. v. FCC
, 3 95 U .S. 3 6 7
, 3 8 0

– 8 1 (1 9 69 ) (“ Su b seq u en t l eg islatio n d eclarin g th e i n ten t o f an earlier statu te is en t it l e d t o g reat w eig h t in
statu to ry co n stru ctio n .”); see also Ba r a h o n a v. Ho ld

er , 69 1 F.3 d 3 4 9
, 3 5 5 (4 th Cir. 2 0 12 ) (co n s i d erin g th e w aiv er p ro v isio n in its an aly sis o f th e

m aterial su

p po rt b ar).

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 17

Cong r ess’ d e termination that ex e cutive branch o fficials are in

a position t o judg e the characteristics of particular g roups eng ag ing in terrorist activities, see 584 F .3d at 782, perhaps taking into account w he t h e r t h e g roups have a practice o f forcing innocent civilians to support their causes under threat of force.

I ndeed

, the relevant officials here h ave ex ercised their authority t o c reate a mechanism by which aliens who have provided material support u nder duress m a y be ex e mpted from th e material support b ar. I n March 2007, Secretary o f Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, after a p p r opriate consultations, ex erci s ed his discretion under the w aiver provision to ex empt from the material support b ar aliens w ho provided support to several s p ecific org aniz a tions. See Ex ercise of Authority Under S e c

. 212(d)(3)(B )(i) of the I mmig r a tion and N ationality Act, 72 F e d. Reg

. 9 954-01 to 9 9 5 7

- 02 (Mar. 6, 2007) (ex empting aliens who provide material support to the Alz a d os, K ay an New L and P arty , Karenni National Prog ressive Party
, Karen National Union/Karen National L iberation Army
, Mustang s, Arakan L iberation Party
, Chin National F ront/Chin Natio n al Army and Chin National L eag ue for D emocracy ). He also

ex e r cised his discretion by c reating a mech a n i s m by which certain aliens who provided mater ial support to a Tier I I I terrorist o r g aniz ation under dur ess c ould be ex empted from the material support bar. See E x e rcise of Authority Under Sec. 212(d)(3)(B )(i) of the I mmig ration and Nationality Act, 72 F ed. Reg

. 9958-01 (Mar. 6, 2007). He set forth specific criteria an alien must meet to qualify fo r a d uress ex c eption and deleg ated to U.S. Citiz enship and I mmig ration Services, in consultation w ith U.S. I mm i gr a tion and Customs E n f o r c e m e n t , t h e a u t h o r i t y t o m a k e i n d i v i d u a l determinations. See id. Shortly thereafter, the Secret a r y

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 18

ex tende d the mechanism f or duress w aivers to aliens w ho
p r o v i d ed support to Tier I and Tier I I org aniz a tions. S e e Ex ercise of Authority Under Section 212(d)(3)(B ) (i) of the I mmig r a tion and N ationality Act, 72 F ed. Reg

. 2 6138-02 (May 8, 2007). 9



### S u bsequent leg islative action helps clarify Cong ress ’ intent

. Only months after Secretary Chertoff issued his directive ex empting specified groups from the material support b ar and creating a mechanism for process i n g duress waivers, Cong re s s passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. See Pub. L

. No. 110-161, 121 Stat 1 844 (Dec. 26, 2007). That Act created a statutory ex emption from the material support bar for the eig h t g roups the Secretary h a d previously ex cepted from the bar. See id. I n response to the mechanism for d

u ress waiver s , t h e Act also required the Secretary to report to Cong ress on an annual basis:

9 W e ac k n o w led g e th at sev eral co m m en t ato rs h av e q u estio n ed th e ad eq u acy o f th e Secretary ’ s w aiv er m ech an ism

. S ee, e.g

. , Ste v en H. Sch u lm an , Victimized T

wice: Asylu m S

eekers a n d th e Ma teria l-S up p ort B a r , 5 9 Cath

. U. L

. Rev

. 9 4 9
, 9 53

- 5 4 (2 01 0 ) (d escrib in g “ p ro n o u n c e d ” d elay s asso ciated w ith th e w aiv er p ro cess); Hu m an Rig h ts First, Den i al

an d Delay : T h e Im

p act o f th e Im

m ig ra t io n L aw ’ s “ T erro rism B ars” on A sy lu m Seek ers an d Ref

u g ees in th e Un ited States, 7

– 8 (2 0 0 9 ), a va ila b le

a t h t t p : / / w w w

. h u m a n r i g h t s f i r s t

. o r g / w p

- c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / p d f / R PP- D e n i a l a

n d Delay

- FUL L

- 1 1 10 0 9

- w eb .p d f (last v i sited May 2 8
, 2 0 1 2 )

. W e ex p ress n o o p in io n as to th e ef f icacy o f th e w aiv er m ech an ism

. T h at d eterm in atio n h as b een d eleg ated so l ely to th e Secretaries o f State an d of Ho m elan d Secu ri t y a n d

, as w e d iscu ss b elo w , Co n g ress ap p ears to b e

m o n ito rin g th e m ech an ism in an ef f o rt t o s t r i k e th e ap p ro p riate b alan ce b etw een th e Un ited States’ h u m an itarian o b l ig atio n s an d n atio n al secu rity

. W e rely o n th e w aiv er p ro v i s i o n o n l y in so f ar as it in f

o rm s ou r

u n d erstan d in g o f

th e statu to ry

stru ctu re.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 19

(1) the number of individuals subject to removal from the United States fo r h aving provided material support to a terrorist g roup who alleg e that s u ch support was provided under duress;

(2) a b reakdown of the ty pes of terrorist
org a niz ations to which the individuals d escribed in parag raph (1) have p rovi d e d material support;

(3) a description of the factors that the Department of Homeland Secu r i ty considers when evaluating

duress waivers; and

(4) any other information that the Sec r e t a ry believes that the Cong ress should consider while o v e r s e e i n g t

h e D e p a r t m e n t’s application of duress waivers.

Id. These leg islative reactions ind i c a te that Cong r ess was deliberate in deleg ating to the Secretary the sole authority to waive the applicability

of terrorist-related bars, and has paid specific attention to duress waivers.

Moreover, the Act amended the waiver provision itself, sig nificantly ex pa n d i ng the Secretaries’ authority to g rant waivers. 1 0 

### Among the a mendments was an ex press

10 P rio r t o th e A ct, th e Secretary w a s g i v e n au th o rity to i ssu e w aiv ers

w ith resp ect to o n ly th ree sp ecif i c terro rism b ars. S e e 8 U .S.C. § 1 1 8 2 (d )(3 )(B )(i) (2 0 0 6 ) (p erm ittin g w aiv ers f o r alien s w

h o w ere

m em b ers o f a p olitical g r o u

p th at en d o rsed terro rist activ ity

, th em selv es

en d o rsed t erro rist activ ities or pro v id ed m ate r i al su p p o rt to a terro rist

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 20

p r ohibition on waivers to aliens who “voluntarily a n d knowing ly ” support or r e ceive training from T ier I and I I
org aniz ations, ag ain indicating that Cong ress has appreciated the distinction between v oluntary and involuntary conduct when amending the I

NA and has been e x press when it seeks
to d isting u ish b etween the two. I n lig ht of all this leg islative activity

, we should d efer to Cong ress’ chosen method to try to strike the correct balance b etween the United States’ humanitarian oblig ations and national security

. 1 1

activ ity ). T h e A ct am en d ed th e w aiv er p ro v isio n to perm it t h e Secretary
t o w a iv e alm o st all of th e terro rism

- related b ars. S ee i d

. § 1 1 8 2 (d )(3 )(B )(i) (2 00 8 ) (p erm ittin g w aiv er f or an y p art o f su

b se ctio n (a)(3 )(B ), ex cep t w

h ere ex ecu tiv e o f

f icial h as reaso n ab le g ro u n d s to b eliev e t h e alien is en g ag ed in o r is lik ely t o en g ag e af ter en try i n terro rist activ ity o r t

h e alien h as v o lu n tary an d k n o w i n g ly esp o u sed su

pp o rt f o r, receiv ed m ilitary train in g f ro m or en g ag ed in terro rist activ ity o n b eh alf

o f a T ier I o r II terro rist o rg an i zatio n ). T h is am en d m en t m ad e elig ib le f or

w aiv ers sev eral classes o f alien s w h o w ere p rev io u sly in elig ib le, i n clu d in g

m em b ers an d rep resen tativ es o f T i er III o rg an izatio n s , p ers o n s w h o th em selv es h av e “ en g ag ed i n terro rist activ ity ,” p ro v id ed th at it w as n o t

o n b eh alf o f a T i er I o r II o rg a n i z a tio n , an d p erso n s w h o “ en g ag ed in
terro rist activ ity ” o n b eh alf o f a T ier I o r II g ro u p , p ro v id ed th at th ey did

n o t d o so v o lu n tarily

an d k n o w in g ly

.

11 A t o ral arg u m en t, A n

n ach am y u

rg ed u s n o t to rely o n th e ex ecu tiv e

w aiv er p ro v i s i o n w h en in terp retin g t h e m aterial su

p p o rt b ar in th is in stan ce b ecau se th e Secretary l ack s th e au th o rity to g ran t h i m a w aiv er. Sp ecif ically

, h e p o in ts to an ex cep tio n to th e w aiv er p ro v isio n t h at say s

“ n o

. . . w aiv er m ay b e ex ten d ed to a g ro u p th at h a s e n ga g e d terro rist activ ity ag ain st th e Un ited States o r an o th er d em o cratic c o un try ,” 8 U.S.C. § 11 8 2 (d )(3 ) ( B ) ( i )

, an d Sri L an k a is a d em o cratic co u n try

. A n n ach am

y m isread s t

h e statu te. B y its o w

n term s, th e ex cep tio n lim its

o n ly th e Secretaries’ au t h o rity to ex ten d w aiv ers to g ro u p s. S ee id

. (d eleg atin g th e au th o rity to “ determ in e

. . . th at su b sectio n (a)(3 )(B )(v i )(III) o f th i s sectio n [d ef in i n g T ier III terro rist o rg an izatio n s] sh all n ot ap ply to a g ro u

p w ith in th e sco p e of th at su b sectio n ” (em

p h asis ad d ed )). T h e ex cep tio n d o es n o t ap p ly to t h e S e c r etaries’ au t h o rity to

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 21

Annachamy

arg ues that interpreting the material support b a r to include aliens who provided support under duress i s i n consistent with Fedorenko v. U nited S tates , 449 U .S. 4 9 0 (1981), a nd Negusie v. H

o l d e r , 555 U.S. 511 (2009). W e disag ree. I

n Fedorenko , the Court interpreted the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (DPA), which Cong ress e n a cted “to enable E uropean refug ees driven from their homelands b y [ W orld W ar I I ] to emig rate to the United S t a tes without
reg ard to traditional immig ration quo t a s

. ” 449 U.S. at 495. “The D PA incorpo ra ted the definition of ‘refug ees o r displac ed persons’ contained in Annex I to the Constitution of the I n ternational Refug ee Org aniz ation of the United Nations” (I RO Constitution). Id. at 4 95 n .3. Section 2 of the I RO Constitution, a s codified b y Cong ress, ex cluded any individual “who can b e shown: ( a ) to have assisted the enemy in p ersecuting civil populations of countries, Members of the United Nations; o r ( b ) to have voluntarily assisted the enemy forces since the outbreak of the second w o r l d war in their operations ag ainst the U nited Nations.” I d

. a t 495 n.4 (quoting Annex I
, Part I I
, 62 Stat. 303 7
, 3051–52 (1946)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Fedo r enko Court held that “an individual’s service a s a c oncentration camp armed g uard — whether voluntary or in v o luntary — made him inelig ible for a v isa” under § 2(a) of the I RO Constitution. Id

. a t 5 1 2. T h e Court observed, “[ t] hat Cong r ess was perfectly c apable o f adopting a ‘voluntariness’ l i mitation w here it felt that o ne was necessary is plain f r o m comparing § 2(a) with § 2(b), wh i c h ex cludes only those individuals who ‘ voluntarily assisted the enemy forces

. . . in their o perations.’” Id. ( a l t e ration in orig inal) (emphasis in

“ determ in e

. . . th at su

b sectio n (a)(3 )(B ) o f th is sectio n [w h ich in clu d es th e

m aterial su

p p o rt b ar] sh a ll n ot ap p ly w ith resp ect to a n a lien w ith in th e

sco p e o f th at su b sectio n .” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 22

orig inal). “Under traditional principles of statutory construction, the deliberate omission of the word ‘voluntary ’ from § 2(a) compels the conclusion that the statute made all those who assisted in the p ersecution o f c i vilians inelig ible for visas.” Id. (emphasis in orig inal).

I n Negusie
, the B I A h eld that it w as constrained b y Fedorenko to read an implied involuntariness ex ception into the I NA’s p e rs e c u tor bar. S ee 555 U.S. at 518. 1 2 

### The Supreme Court held that the B I A erred b y as s uming that Fedorenko contr o l led without considering the differences between the statutory frameworks at issue in Fedorenko and Negusie

. I n particular, “[ t] he tex tual structure o f the statute in Fedorenko (‘voluntary ’ is in one subsecti o n b u t not the other) [ was] not part of the statutory framework considered” in Negusie

. Id. at 519. The Court remanded to allow the B I A
to ex e rcise its interpretive authority to construe the persecutor bar. See id. at 522–23.

Fedorenko and Negusie are c o n s istent w ith our conclusion here. As with the I RO Constitution in F edorenko

, Cong r ess’ e x press distinction between v o luntary a nd involuntary conduct in § 1182 compels the conclusion that it deliberately omitted a voluntariness r equir em e n t from the material support bar. Fu r t h e rmore, we are not faced with a situation in which th e BI A m istakenly b ased its decision on precedent that was not controlling

. Rather, the B I A eng ag ed in an independent interpretation of the statute, employ ing

12 T h e p ersecu to r b ar states: “ T h e term ‘ ref u g ee’ d o es n o t in clu d e an y p erso n w h o o rd ered

, in cited

, assisted

, o r o th erw ise p articip ated i n th e p e r secu t io n o f an y p erso n o n acco u n t o f race, relig io n , n atio n al i t y , m em b ersh ip in a p articu lar so cial g ro u p , o r p olitical op in i o n .” 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 0 1(a)(4 2 ).

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 23

some of the same canons of statutory i n t e r p retation that we have applied above, and c o ncluded that the material support bar contains no ex ception for duress. 1 3



### W e also reject Annachamy ’ s sug g est ion that c onstruing the material support bar to incl u de involuntary support conflicts with the United States’ oblig ations u nder the United Nations Protocol Relating to the S t atus of Refug ees (“Protocol”) and the United Nations Convention Relating to t he Status of Refug ees ( “Convention”). Alth o u gh Annachamy does n o t identify the provisions o f the Convention or Protocol that support hi s arg ument, he

a p p a r ently relies on the Convention’s limited ex ceptions to refug ee s t a t u s and its nonrefoulement provision. The Convention ex cepts from the definition of refug ee:

13 A n n ach am

y also arg u es th at th e crim in al law p resu m p tio n o f a d u ress

ex cep tio n sh o u ld b e im

p o rted in to im

m ig rat i o n law

. In Neg u sie
, th e Su p rem e Co u rt d id n o t d ecid e w h eth er th e INA ’ s p ersecu to r b ar im p o rts th is p rin cip le o f

crim in al cu lp ab i lity

. S

ee 5 5 5 U.S. at 5 1 7 –1 8 (d eclin in g to ad d ress th e i ssu e). So m e J u stices w ere d iv id ed o n th e i ssu e. Co mp are id

. at 5 2 6 (Scal i a , J

. , j o in ed by A lito

, J
., co n cu rrin g ) (p ro v id in g sev eral

reaso n s a d u ress d ef

en s e b ased o n prin cip les o f crim in al cu lp ab ility sh ou ld

n o t n ecessarily be read in to th e INA ’ s p ersecu to r b ar) a n d id

. at 5 49 n .3 (T h o m as, J
., d issen tin g ) (arg u in g th at “ [t]h ere is n o w ar r a n t t o read crim in al- law req u irem en ts in to ” th e INA ) with id

. at 5 3 6

– 3 7 (Stev en s, J
., j o in ed b y B r e y er, J
., co n cu rrin g in p art an d d issen tin g in p art) (arg u in g th at prin cip les of crim in al cu lp ab ility sh o u ld ap p ly to th e p ersecu to r b ar). Un l ik e Neg u sie
, h o w ev er, w h ere t h e s tatu to ry stru ctu re su rro u n d in g th e p ersecu to r b ar d id n o t in f o rm th e p ro v isio n ’ s silen ce as to d u r e ss , th e statu to ry stru ctu re s u rro u n d in g th e m aterial su p po rt b ar w o u ld be stro n g

en o u g h to d ef

eat th e crim i n al law pr e su m p tio n th at th ere is a d u ress

ex cep tio n

. T h u s, w e n eed n o t reach th e m o re g en eral q u estio n o f w h eth er Co n g ress sh o u ld b e p resu m ed to h av e leg islated w ith a du ress ex cep tio n in m in d

.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 24

any person with respect to w h o m there a re serious reasons for considering that:

( a ) he has committed a crime a g ainst peace, a

war c rime, or a crime ag ainst humanity

, a s defined in the international instruments drawn
up to make p r ovision in r espect of such crimes;

( b ) h e h a s c ommitted a serious non-political crime o utside the c o u ntry of r efug e prior to his admission to that country as a refug ee;

( c ) h e h as been g uilty of acts contrary to t h e purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Convention, art. 1F

, reprinted in 19 U.S.T. 6223.

The Convention also includes a duty of nonrefoulement, which provides that “[ n] o Contracting S tate shall e x pel o r return (‘refouler’) a refug ee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where hi s l i f e or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, r e lig io n, nationality

, membership of a particular social g roup o r political opinion.” Id. at art. 33.1. The Convention also states, however, that the benefit of nonrefoulement may not “be claimed by a refug ee whom there are r easonable g rounds for reg arding as a d a ng er to the security of the c o untry in w hich he is.” Id. at art. 33.2.

I n Khan

, we rejected the a rg u ment that Article 1 F and the duty of nonrefoulem ent c o mpelled a narrow r eading of the I NA’s terrorist bars t h a t would e x clude leg itimate armed resistance. Althoug h the United Stat e s a cceded to the Protocol in 1968, the Protoc ol is n o t self-ex ecuting a nd

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 25

therefore does not have the force of law in American courts. See Khan

, 584 F

. 3d at 783. W e nonetheless “follow[ ed] the
g eneral rule o f the Charming Betsy canon that ‘ a n act o f Cong r ess oug ht never to be construed to violate the la w o f nations, if any other pos s i ble c onstruction remains.’” Id. (quoting Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy
, 6 U .S. ( 2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804)). W e o bserved that “[ t] he Protocol, throug h Refug ee Convention A rticle 3 3.2, allows the United States to r efoul an individu al ‘whom there are reasonable
g rounds for r eg arding as a da n ge r to the security ’ of the United States” and that, according to the United Nations Hig h Commissioner for Refug ees, “‘th e d etermination of refug ee status

. . . is incumbent upon the C ontracting state in whose territory the refug ee finds h i m self.’” Id. at 783–84 (second alteration in orig inal). Thus, Cong ress’ determination in the I N A t h at “an alien who [ has eng ag ed in a terrorist activity ] shall be considered to be an alien w ith respect to whom there

are reasonable g rounds for reg arding a s a d ang e r to the security of the U nited States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), adhered
to the Protocol’s nonrefoulement provision and c o n t r o l l ed our decision. See id. a t 784. The same r e a s o n i n g a pplies h ere. Under the Protocol and Convention, Cong ress is free to decide t h at an alien w ho provided material support to a terrorist o rg aniz ation, even if under duress, is a dang er to the security of the United States. 1 4
, 1 5

14 A lth o ug h n e i t h e r p arty cites th em , w e n o te th at th e U.N. G u id elin es

o n th e ap plicatio n o f A rticle 1 F sp ecif y th at “ [f

]acto rs g e n e rally

co n sid ered to co n stitu

te d ef en ces to crim in al r e s p o n sib ility ,” i n clu d in g d u ress, “ s h o u l d b e co n sid ered .” U NHCR, Gu id elin e s o n In tern atio n al P ro tectio n : A

p p l icatio n o f th e Ex clu s io n Clau s es: A rticle 1 F o f th e 1 9 5 1 Co n v en t io n relatin g t o t he Statu s o f Ref u g ees § II.E.2 2 (2 0 0 3) (“ Gu id elin es”). W e p resu m e t h at t h ese G u i d elin es, lik e th e U .N. Han d b oo k

, “ m ay b e a u s e fu l in terp retiv e aid ,” b u t th ey are “ n o t b in d in g

o n th e A tto rn ey Gen eral, th e B IA
, o r Un ited States co u rts. ” INS v.

### A N N A C H A M Y V



### . H O L D E R 

### 26

IV.

F or the foreg o ing r easons, we hold that the m aterial support bar does not incl u d e a n implied ex ception for individuals who assist org aniz ations eng ag ed in leg it i m a t e political violence or who provide support under duress.

P ETITION DENIED.

Ag u irre-Ag u irre
, 5 2 6 U.S. 4 1 5
, 4 2 7 (1 9 9 9 ). In an y ev en t, th e G u id elin es d o n o t co n f

lict w ith ou r i n terp retatio n

. A n in div id u al in elig ib l e f o r asy lu m d u e t o t h e m aterial s u

p p o rt b ar is ex clu d ed b ecau se h e is a “ d an g er to th e

secu rity o f t

h e U n ited State s , ” a s p erm itted b y A rticle 3 3.2 o f th e Co n v en t io n

. Kh a n , 5 8 4 F.3 d at 7 8 4 (q u o tin g 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )). T h e Gu i d elin es d o n o t ap p l y t o A rticle 33 .2

. S ee G u id elin es § I.B .4 (“ [T ]h e

ex clu sio n clau ses are n ot to b e co n f u s ed w ith A rticles 3 2 an d 3 3(2 ) o f th e Co n v en t io n w

h i ch d eal resp ectiv ely w ith th e ex p u lsio n o f

, an d th e

w ith d raw al o f p ro tectio n f ro m ref o u lem en t f

ro m , reco g n ised ref

u g ees w h o p o se a d an g er to th e h o s t Stat e (f o r ex am ple, b ecau se o f serio u s crim es th ey h av e co m

m itted th ere). A rticle 3 3 (2 ) co n cern s th e f u tu re risk th at a

reco g n ised ref

u g ee m ay p o se to th e h o s t State.”).

15 Fu rth erm o re , a s w e n o ted in Kh a n , ev en if th ere w ere a co n f lict, th e ad m i n istrativ e w aiv er p ro v isio n , b y g ran tin g th e ex ecu tiv e th e d iscretio n to w aiv e ap p licab ility of th e terro rist bars as t o alien s w h o are n o t a d an g er to t h e U n i t e d States, is p ro b ab ly su f f icien t to reso lv e th e co n f lict. S ee Kh a n , 5 8 4 F.3 d at 78 4 ( c itin g INS v. S tevic
, 4 6 7 U.S. 4 0 7
, 4 2 8 n .2 2 (1 9 8 4)).