FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13359

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 134- 139 J E A N H E R O L D J E A N - P I E R R E , a .k .a . J e a n H a r o ld P ie rr e , a .k .a . M a r tin aJ e a n P ie rr e , a .k .a . J e a n P ie rr e J e a n h e r o ld , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 19, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: M o r e th a n f

if ty y e a r s a g o , J u s tic e F r a n k f u r te rw r o te th a t, w h e n it c o m e s toConvention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, Inhuman or De gradingTreatment or 1 Punishm ent ar

t. 3, § 1, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Tre aty Doc. No. 100- 20 (1988), 1465 U.N .T.S. 85. REALID Act of

2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 302 (codif ied in scattered 2 sections of 8 U.S.C.). 2 t or tur e , “ the r e c om e s apoi ntw he r e thi s C our ts houl d notbe i gnor a nta s j udge s of wh a twe k n o w a s m e n . ” Wa tt s v . I n d i a n a , 3 3 8 U. S . 4 9 , 5 2 ( 1 9 4 9 ) . T o d a y , we de c i de notw he the rourhum a ni ty s houl d i nf orm ourunde r s t a ndi ng of t or tur e , but w he the r , i n the c ont e xtof thi s c l a i m , C ongr e s s ha s e l i m i na t e d the j ur i s di c t i on of the f e de r a l c our t s t o a ddr e s s thi s i s s ue i n the f i r s tpl a c e . W e c onc l ude tha tthe qu es t i on atthe heartof thi s app ea l -- w hether apart i cul arcourse of cond uct a m ount s t o t or tur e unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd the a c c om pa ny i ng 1 l egi sl at i on -- i s al egal on e, and accordi ng l y f al l s s qu ar el y w i thi n o ur l i m i t ed j ur i s di c t i on unde rthe R E A L I D A c tof 2005. 2 P e t i t i o n e rJ e a n He r o l d J e a n P i e rr e ( “ J e a n P i e rr e ” ) , ag r a v e l y i l l AI DS pat i ent , cl ai m s thathe w i l l be t ortured i n j ai l i f he i s r em ov ed t o H ai t i as a c ri m i nal a lie n . H e h a s c o n s is te n tly s a id , w ith o u t a n y d is p u te , th a t h e w ill b e b e a te n w ith m et al rods, confi ned for w ee ks i n a t i ny cr aw l spac e, and subj ec t ed t o the H ai t i an p r a c tic e o f

“k a lo t m a r a s s a ” ( s e v e r e b o x in g o f th e e a r s ) . T h is c o n d u c t, h e a r g u e s , is t or tur e . B e c a us e the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe he a r tof the s e c l a i m s , w e gr a nthi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w , va c a t e the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, a nd rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s.Jean Pi erreple d guilty to c oc ainepo sse ssi on

on Ap ri l 11 , 1 99 5. Hewa s sentenc e d to 3 five da ys in jail and two year s of probation. R. 1488–93. On June 16, 1997, he w as convic ted of cocaine possession and saleand sentenced to six m onths in prison. R. 1464–66. Finally , on March 26, 2004, J ean Pier re w as cha

rg ed with possession with intent to sell or deliver coc aine, use or possession of dr

ugpara phernalia, and possession of 20 grams or le ss of ca nnabis. R. 1314. Followinga plea

of nolo contendere, hewas sentenced by the state c ourt to 24 months imprisonment. R. 1316. 3 I . A . J e a n H e r o ld J e a n P ie rr e , aH a itia n c itiz e n , e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s in A ug ust19 92 on a t em po ra ryvi sathatexpi re d i n 1 99 3. T here af t er , Je an P i erre w as conv i ct ed of vi ol at i ng F l ori da’ s drug l aw s i n 1 99 5, 19 97 , and agai n i n 2 00 4. In 3 2 0 0 5 , w h ile J e a n P ie rr e w a s s e rv in g atw o - y e a rs e n te n c e in aS t. L u c ie C o u n ty ja il o n h is th ir d c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e c o n v ic tio n , th e D e p a r tm e n t o f H o m e la n d S e c u r ity be ga n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns thi m pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1227. T hi s s e c t i on o f th e i m m i g rat i o n l aw s p ro v i d es th atan y al i en co n v i ct ed o f cert ai n cri m es, i ncl ud i ng the drug cr i m es com m i tt ed by Je an P i erre , i s deport abl e upo n the order o f th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) ( “A n y a lie n w h o is c onvi c t e d of

a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony a ta ny t i m e a f

t e ra dm i s s i on i s de por t abl e . ” ) ; i d. § 1 22 7(a) (2)( B )( i ) ( “ A ny al i en w ho atany t i m e a ft eradm i ss i on has bee n con vi ct ed of a vi ol at i on of . . . any l aw or re gu l at i on of a S t at e . . . re l at i ng t o a control l ed s u b s ta n c e . . . is d e p o r tab le .” ) . C la im in g th a t h e w ill b e to r tu r e d if h e is s e n t to H ai t i , Jean P i erre so u g h tw i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st4

T or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( “ C A T ” ) a r t . 3, § 1, D e c . 10, 1984, S . T r e a ty D oc . N o. 100- 20 ( 1988) , 1465 U . N . T . S . 85. T hese basi c f

ac t s a re un di sput ed. Je an P i erre has A ID S . W hi l e i n U ni t ed S ta te s c u s to d y , h e h a s r e c e iv e d lif e - s a v in g m e d ic a tio n , b u t th e v iru s c o n tin u e s to r a v a g e h is b o d y . H e is in f e c te d w ith c y to m e g a lo v iru s , a n in f e c tio n d a n g e r o u s in im m u n o c o m p r o m is e d in d iv id u a ls . T h e in f e c tio n h a s c a u s e d h im to g o b lin d in h is l e f te y e . H e f

r e que nt l y s uf

f e r s f r om he a da c he s , f

e ve r s , a nd m e m ory i m pa i rm e nt ; he of t e n be c om e s t e rr i f

i e d w he n he a w a ke ns t o ha l l uc i na t ory vi s i ons of bi g s na ke s or w a l l s f a l l i ng ove r . J e a n P i e rr e c l a i m s tha tbe i ng de por t e d t o H a i t i w i l l a m ountt o a de a th s e nt e nc e , a nd w i l l be the s a m e a s i f s om e one “ putagun t o hi s he a d a nd s hot hi m . ” R . a t188. I n f

a c t , he t e s t i f

i e d tha the w oul d pr e f

e rthi s qui c k de a th t o be i ng de por t e d. A l though J e a n P i e rr e ha s s e rve d hi s s e nt e nc e f orvi ol a t i ng F l or i da ’ s drug l a w s , c r i m i na l de por t e e s f r om the U ni t e d S t a t e s a r e s ubj e c tt o i nde f i ni t e de t e nt i on i n H a i t i a n pr i s ons upon the i rr e turn t o H a i t i . R . a t190. N o one di s put e s tha tthe c o n d itio n s in H a itia n p r is o n s a r e ap p a llin g . A c c o r d in g to th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t, p r is o n e r s in H a iti s u f

f e rf r o m ala c k o f

b a s ic h y g ie n e , m a ln u tr itio n , a n d in a d e q u a te o rn o n e x is te n t h e a lth c a r e . U .S . S ta te D e p ’t, C o u n try R e p o r ts o n H u m a n R ig h ts P r a c t i c e s - 2004 - H a i t i ( F e b. 28, 2005) . I nf e c t i ous di s e a s e f

l our i s he s i n the5

ove r c r ow de d f

a c i l i t i e s , a nd e ve n ba s i c s uppl i e s s uc h a s w a t e ra r e l i m i t e d. I d. I n no sm al l m ea sure , the pri soners ’ suff er i ng i s und ou bt edl y aconsequence of the fa ct th a t H a iti is th e p o o r e s t c o u n try in th e W e s te rn H e m is p h e r e . S e e I n r e J - E - , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . 291, 301 ( B I A 2002) ( e n ba nc ) ( “ T he r e c or d e s t abl i s he s tha tH a i t i a n pr i s on c ondi t i ons a r e the r e s ul tof budge t a ry a nd m a na ge m e ntpr obl e m s a s w e l l a s the c o u n try ’s s e v e r e e c o n o m ic d if f ic u ltie s .” ) . P o v e r ty is n o t, h o w e v e r , th e o n ly p r o b le m . A c c o r d in g to th e S ta te D e pa r tm e nt , H a i t i a n pr i s on gua r ds s om e t i m e s be a tpr i s one r s w i th f i s t s , s t i c ks , a nd be l t s , a nd w e ha ve pr e vi ous l y a c know l e dge d tha t“ c e r t a i n i s ol a t e d, vi c i ous a nd d el i b erat e act s, su ch as b u rn i n g w i th ci g arett es, ch o k i n g , h o o d i n g , k al o tm arassa [ s e v e r e b o x in g o f

th e e a r s , s o m e tim e s le a d in g to e a r d ru m d a m a g e ], a n d e le c tr ic s h o c k d o o c c u rin H a itia n p r is o n s .” C a d e t v . B u lg e r , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ). Jean P i erre arg u es th atH ai t i an j ai l o rs w i l l si n g l e h i m o u tfo r esp eci al l y h arsh tre atm entbecause of hi s H IV i nfec t i on and accom panyi ng m ent al i l l ness . In s uppor tof

thi s c l a i m , J e a n P i e rr e pr e s e nt e d m a t e r i a l s s pe c i f i c t o the tr e a tm e ntof A I D S - i nf

e c t e d pe r s ons i n H a i t i , i nc l udi ng i nf orm a t i on f

r om the U . S . C e nt e r s f

or D i sease C o n tro l an d P rev en t i o n , rep o rt s fro m p u b l i c h eal th o rg an i zat i o n s, ne w s pape ra r t i c l e s de s c r i bi ng the s t i gm a t i z a t i on of A I D S pa t i e nt s , a nd t e s t i m ony f r o m an u m b e ro f

e x p e r ts . T h u s , f

o re x a m p le , J e a n P ie rr e p o in te d to th e S ta te6

D e pa r tm e nt ’ s C ountry R e por ton H a i t i , w hi c h s a y s tha t“ [ s ] oc i e t a l di s c r i m i na t i on o ccu rred ag ai n stp erso n s w i th H IV /A ID S . ” 2 0 0 4 C o u n try R ep o rt . Jean P i erre also pr oduc e d a n a f

f i da vi tf r om D r . P a ul F a rm e r , apr of e s s ora tH a rva r d M e di c a l S c hool a n d f o u n d e ro f

P a r tn e r s in H e a lth , a n in te rn a tio n a l p u b lic h e a lth o r g a n iz a tio n w ith ext ensi ve op er at i on s i n H ai t i . F arm er ’ s a ff i davi tdesc ri bes “ the t erri bl e s oci al st i g m a asso ci at ed w i th th e v i ru s” an d th e factth at“ d i scri m i n at i o n an d ab u se a ga i ns tpoorH a i t i a ns w i th H I V /A I D S i s as tr ong r e a l i ty i n H a i t i . ” R . a t424–26. Jean P i erre also p resen t ed t est i m o n y fro m C h an d ra K an t o r, a n u rse p r a c titio n e rw h o e s tim a te d th a t, if d e p o r te d to aH a itia n p r is o n , J e a n P ie rr e w o u ld lik e ly d e v e lo p alif

e - th r e a te n in g d is e a s e w ith in am o n th o rtw o a n d d ie s h o r tly the r e a f t e r . T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s s uppor t e d by S t a c y G r a z i os i , a n “ i nt e ns i ve a dhe r e nc e s pe c i a l i s t ” i n H I V /A I D S w ho be ga n m oni t or i ng J e a n P i e rr e ’ s tr e a tm e nt r e g im e n in 2 0 0 2 . S h e o p in e d th a t J e a n P ie rr e ’s A I D S - r e la te d c o m p lic a tio n s w o u ld w o rsen u p o n h i s retu rn t o H ai t i an d th ath i s i n fect i o n , l eftu n m ed i cat ed , “ w i l l cro ss [hi s] bl oo d-brai n b arri erand w i l l cause hi m t o exh i bi tvari ou s neuropsyc ho l og i ca l i l l ne s s e s s uc h a s ne ur os y phi l i s , he rpe s e nc e pha l i t i s , orge ne r a l pa r e s i s of the i ns a ne . ” R . a t194. D r . F r a n c is C o u rn o s , p r o f e s s o ro f c lin ic a l p s y c h ia try a t C o lu m b iaU n iv e r s ity a nd de puty di r e c t orof

the N e w Y ork S t a t e P s y c hi a tr i c I ns t i tut e , i s a n e xpe r ton the m ent al consequences a ss oci at ed w i th H IV /A ID S . H eraf fi davi taverre d that7

i ndi vi dua l s l i ke J e a n P i e rr e w i th l a t e - s t a ge A I D S a r e of t e n “ unabl e t o f

unc t i on m e nt a l l y , de l i r i ous , ha l l uc i na t ory , ore ve n ps y c hot i c , ” a nd tha tthe y a r e a l s o pr one t o i nfec t i on . R . at19 2. In part i cul ar , she t es t i fi ed thatcy t om egal ov i rus - - a n i nf e c t i on tha tha s a l r e a dy c a us e d J e a n P i e rr e t o go bl i nd i n one e y e - - “ i nf e c t s the br a i n of a n A I D S pa t i e nt , c a us i ng r api d pe r s ona l i ty c ha nge s . ” R . a t193. F i nal l y, M i chel l e K ar shan, the di re ct or of A l t ernat i ve C hance, a H ai t i -bas ed prog ra m prov i di ng as si st ance t o cri m i nal depo rt ee s f rom the U . S . , t es t i fi ed r e g a r d i n g th e l i n k b e twe e n c o n d i t i o n s i n Ha i t i a n p r i s o n s , s t i g m a t i z a t i o n o f AI DS pat i ent s, and the tre atm entof m ent al l y i l l pri soners . N ot abl y, K ar shan sa i d that pri soners w i th m ent al heal th i ss ues a re m ore l i kel y t o actou t , and thatthe offi ce rs in ap r is o n s h e v is ite d u s e d e x te n d e d c o n f in e m e n t in atin y c r a w l s p a c e to d e a l w ith th ese d i ffi cu l tp at i en t s: [ I ] f th e y h a v e me n t a l h e a l th p r o b l e ms , a n d th e y a c t o u t , w h i c h a l o tof t hem do . . . . pe op l e thi nktha tthe y [ ] . . . ha ve as pe l l , tha tthe y’ re p o ssessed , . . . an d w h en th e o ffi cers can n o th an d l e th em , . . . th ey u se a c ra w l spac e und erthe st ai rs . It ’ s at i ny space w h er e y ou ca n’ teven s t and up, a nd the y j us tl oc k the m i n the r e a nd s om e t i m e s f orm onths o n e n d , a n d th e r e ’s n o p r o c e s s to s e e th e m , e i t h e r . T h e y h a v e to r e ly on s om e c om pa s s i ona t e f e l l ow pr i s one rt o b ri ng the m f ood. S o, y ou k n o w , p e o p le c a n ju s t d ie in th e c r a w l s p a c e . I ’m ta lk in g ab o u t ju s t, you kno w , that l i tt l e spac e un der the st ai rw el l , and they’ re j ustlo ck ed i n there . It ’ s acl oset , and they c an’ tst and, and they d on ’ thave a bed ora ny thi ng, a nd tha t ’ s w he r e the y s t a y f orm o n t hs , a nd I ’ ve pers on al l y w i tness ed th at. Y ou kn ow , w e f ou gh tveryhard agai nstthat c r a w l s pa c e pr oc e s s , a nd the y ’ r e s t i l l us i ng i tr i ghtthi s s e c ond. R . a t 2 9 0 .8

K ar shan further t es t i fi ed thatfood i nsi de the pri sons i s di stri bu t ed by other i nm a t e s , a nd tha ts i c k orm e nt a l l y i l l pr i s one r s w e r e of t e n unabl e t o ge ta ny f

ood. R . at18 9. F i nal l y, she s ai d thatcr i m i nal depo rt ee s f rom the U ni t ed S t at es ar e tr e a t e d e s pe c i a l l y ha r s hl y , a nd tha tthe y a r e s om e t i m e s “ be a t e n w i th m e t a l w a nds be c a us e the pr i s on gua r ds pe r c e i ve the m t o be pr of e s s i ona l c r i m i na l s de s e rvi ng of th e p u n is h m e n t.” R . a t 1 9 0 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t o f f e r e d n o f a c ts in r e s p o n s e to th is r e c or d. B . T he I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) de ni e d J e a n P i e rr e ’ s appl i c a t i on f or w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e on J a nua ry 3, 2006. N ot abl y , he f

ound tha tJ e a n P i e rr e ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s “ c l e a r , be l i e vabl e , a nd suff i ci ent l y det ai l ed” a nd ca l l ed hi m a c re di bl e w i tness . R . at19 6– 19 7. T he IJ ul t i m a t e l y de c i de d, how e ve r , tha tJ e a n P i e rr e ha d “ notm e thi s bur de n of pr oof a nd es t abl i shed thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthathe w i l l be t ortured by the H ai t i an go vernm enti f he i s r eturned t o H ai t i . ” R . at19 7. F ol l ow i ng the re as on i ng of an e a r l i e rB oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s c a s e , I n r e J - E - , 23 I . & N . D e c . 291, 301 ( B I A 2002) ( e n ba nc ) , he s a i d tha tthe r e w a s “ no e vi de nc e i n the R e c or d of P ro ceed i n g s th atth e H ai t i an g o v ern m en td el i b erat el y creat es an d m ai n t ai n s th o se c o n d itio n s a s am e a n s o f to r tu r in g in m a te s .” R . a t 1 9 7 ; s e e a ls o R . a t 1 9 8 ( “T o s ta te th a t th e H a itia n g o v e rn m e n t, th e p o o r e s t in th e W e s te rn H e m is p h e r e , in te n d s to9

t orture i t s pri soners w hen i tm er el y i s i ncapabl e of r em edyi ng i t s pri son sys t em un fa i rl y tw i st s the m ea ni ng of prot ec t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture. ”) . A s f orthe f a c ttha tJ e a n P i e rr e ha s A I D S , the I J c onc l ude d tha tthe r e i s “ no e vi de nc e tha tthe gove rnm e nts pe c i f i c a l l y t a r ge t s [ pe opl e w i th H I V /A I D S ] f or m i s tr e a tm e ntorl a c k of

m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt . ” R . a t198. F i na l l y , he obs e rve d, “ the tre atm entthe R es po nd entw i l l encoun t eri n the H ai t i an j ai l , w hi l e horrendou s, do es n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f

to r tu r e a s c o n te m p la te d b y th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e .” R . a t198. J e a n P ie rr e ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ”) , w hi ch af

fi rm ed the Im m i grat i on Judg e i n a shortop i ni on . T he B IA

“ ac kn ow l edge[d] , as di d the Im m i grat i on Judg e, thatthe re spon dent ’ s a dv ance d a n d u n tr e a te d H I V illn e s s w o u ld lik e ly le a d to d e lir iu m a n d o th e rp s y c h o tic s y m pt om s , ” a nd i tc oul d not“ di s put e the l ogi c a l c onc l us i on tha tpr i s one r s w ho su ffer fro m su ch sym p t o m s are l i k el y t o b e l ess co o p erat i v e w i th th e p ri so n g u ard s’ adm i ni stra t i on of thei r dut i es . ” R . at26 (e m ph as es added). H ow ever , the B IA c o n c lu d e d , des pi t e s om e e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t i ng tha tthos e , l i ke the re spon dent , w ho ar e m ent al l y i l l or af fl i ct ed w i th H IV m ay endu re ha r s he rc i r c um s t a nc e s a s a r e s ul tof the i rm e di c a l c ondi t i on tha n the a ve r a ge c r i m i na l de por t e e , the ev i d en c e doe s nots uppor taf i ndi ng tha ti ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha tthe r e s ponde ntw i l l be t or tur e d upon hi s r eturn t o H ai t i . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 18 (a )( 1) (def i ni n g torture a s “ a ny a c tbyw hi c h s e ve r e p ai n o r s uf f e r i ng, w he the rphy s i c a l or10

me n t a l , i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n f l i c t e d . . . . ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) ; 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( th e to r tu r o u s a c t “m u s t b e s p e c i f ic a lly in te n d e d to i nf l i c ts e ve r e phy s i c a l orm e nt a l pa i n ors uf f e r i ng” ) ( e m p h asi s a dde d) ( “A n a c t th a t r e s u lts in u n a n tic ip a te d o ru n in te n d e d s e v e r ity o f p a in an d su ffe r i ng i s nott or tur e ” ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1208. 18( a ) ( 3) ( s t a t i ng “ [ t ] o r tu r e d o e s n o ti n c l u d e p a i n o rs u f f e r i n g a r i s i n g o n l y f

r o m, in h e r e n t [ in ] o r in c id e n ta l to la w f u l s a n c tio n [ s ]” ) ; 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( s t a t i ng t o r tu r e “ d o e s n o ti n c l u d e l e s s e rf o rms of cruel , i nh um an[] or degradi ng [tre atm entor] pu ni shm ent ”) . R . a t 2 6

– 2 7 ( f

ir s t tw o a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l; s u b s e q u e n t a lte r a tio n s a d d e d to in d icate th e c o rr ec t t ex t o f th e r eg u lati o n s) . Jea n P ierr e tim ely a p p ea led th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . O n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w o n ly th e B I A o p in io n . S e e A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( “ W e r e vi e w onl y the B oa r d’ s de c i s i on, exce ptt o the ext entthati texpres sl y a do pt s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ”) . II. F i rs t , the go vernm entar gu es thatw e a re w i tho utj uri sdi ct i on t o con si der Je an P i erre ’ s c l ai m because of the j uri sdi ct i on al l i m i t s f ou nd i n the R E A L ID A ct of 20 05 , P ub . L . N o. 10 9-13 , 11 9 S t at . 23 1, 30 2 (codi fi ed i n sca tt er ed se ct i on s of 8 U . S . C . ) . T he R E A L I D A c tl i m i t s f e de r a l c our tj ur i s di c t i on i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng c e r t a i n c r i m i na l a l i e ns t o “ c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s orque s t i ons of l a w r a i s e d upon a p e titio n f o rr e v ie w f

ile d w ith a n ap p r o p r ia te c o u r t o f ap p e a ls in a c c o r d a n c e w ith thi s s ec t i on . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( D ); se e a l so i d. § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ) ( “ [E ] xceptas prov i ded i n sub para graph (D ), no courtshal l have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew any f i nal order of re m ov al agai nstan al i en w ho i s r em ov abl e by r ea son o f havi ng com m i tt ed11

a c ri m i nal offe nse c ov er ed i n [the enum er at ed se ct i on s] . ”) . U nd erthe R E A L ID A ct , w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov er“ qu es t i on s of l aw . ” S ee id . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) . B e c a u s e th e s ta tu te p r e s e n ts th e ju r is d ic tio n a l p r o v is io n in § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) a s a n e xc e pt i on t o the ge ne r a l rul e ba rr i ng appe l l a t e r e vi e w of fi nal re m ov al orders i n cas es i nv ol vi ng cr i m i nal al i ens i n § 12 52 (a )( 2)(C ), m oreover, w e have j uri sdi ct i on on l y t o the ext entthatJe an P i erre ra i se s s uch

“ const i tut i on al cl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw . ” I n o ther w ords, the R E A L ID A ct prevent s us f

rom re vi ew i ng fa ctual det erm i nat i on s m ade by the IJor B IA i n cas es i nv ol vi ng al i ens w ho have com m i tt ed a l i st ed cr i m i nal offe nse. C f. C hacon-B ot er o v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 427 F . 3d 954, 957 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( hol di ng, i n a c a s e i nvol vi ng ar e l a t e d pr ovi s i on of the R E A L I D A c t , tha t“ di s c r e t i ona ry or f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons c ont i nue t o f a l l out s i de the j ur i s di c t i on of the c our tof ap p e a ls e n te r ta in in g ap e titio n f o rr e v ie w ” ) . A c c or di ng t o the gove rnm e nt , J e a n P i e rr e ’ s c l a i m doe s notr a i s e a“ que s t i on of l a w ” be c a us e he i s r e a l l y a tt e m pt i ng t o c ha l l e nge af a c tua l de t e rm i na t i on c onc e rni ng the l i ke l i hood tha the w i l l be s ubj e c t e d t o t or tur e . I n othe rw or ds , the gove rnm e nta s s e r t s , J e a n P i e rr e i s r e a l l y try i ng t o c i r c um ve ntthe una m bi guous l i m i t at i on s C on gres s has pl ac ed on ou r j uri sdi ct i on by dres si ng up a purel y f ac tual c h a lle n g e a s aq u e s tio n o f la w . W e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d . W e begi n w i th C adet , an i m m i grat i on ca se i nv ol vi ng a c ri m i nal al i enTh eSup remeCourt ha s de fine d s uch q

ue sti on s a s th os e“ in which th ehis toric al f a c ts 4 area dmitte d o r e sta

bli sh e d, theruleof

law i s undispute d, and

theissueis whether t

hefac ts satisfy the statutory

standard, or

to put it another way, whether the rule of

law as a pplied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 290 n.19 (1982). Mixed questions are g enerally held to fall within the jurisdiction of the reviewingcourt even when the c ourt’s jurisdiction to review thefac ts themselves has been limit ed or e liminated. See, e.g ., Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6 (1963) ( “B y ‘issues of fact’ wemean to re fer to what are ter

med basic, primary, or historical facts: fac ts ‘in the sense of a re cital of e x ternal events a nd the credibility

of their na

rrators . . . .’ B rown v. Allen, 344 U .S. 443, 506 (opinion of Mr. Justice F rankf

urter) . So-called mixed questions of fac t and law, which requirethe application of a

leg al standard to the historical-fact deter minations, are not facts in this sense.”). 12 d e c id e d s h o r tly b e f

o r e C o n g r e s s p a s s e d th e R E A L I D A c t. T h e r e , ap a n e l o f th is C ou rthel d thathabeas corpus j uri sdi ct i on ext ends t o the adj ud i ca t i on of m i xed que s t i ons of

l a w a nd f

a c t , i nc l udi ng the que s t i on of w he the rapa r t i c ul a rc our s e of 4 c onduc t( f

a c t ) c ons t i tut e s t or tur e ( l a w ) . S e e 377 F . 3d a t1184 ( “ [ T ] he s c ope of habeas re vi ew avai l abl e i n § 22 41 pet i t i on s by a l i ens c hal l engi ng re m ov al orders . . . i ncl ud es const i tut i on al i ss ues a nd errors of l aw , i ncl ud i ng bo th st atut ory i nt erpret at i on s a nd appl i ca t i on of l aw t o u nd i sput ed fa ct s or a dj ud i ca t ed f a c t s . . . . ” ) ; s e e a l s o I N S v. S t . C y r , 533 U . S . 289, 302 ( 2001) ( “ [ T ] he i s s ua nc e of the w r i t[ of

habe a s c orpus ] w a s notl i m i t e d t o c ha l l e nge s t o the j ur i s di c t i on of the c us t odi a n, bute nc om pa s s e d de t e nt i ons ba s e d on e rr or s of l a w , i nc l udi ng the e rr o n e o u s ap p l i c a t i o n o ri n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f s t a tu t e s . ” ) . Ha v i n g f

o u n d j u r i s d i c t i o n , we r e vi e w e d the B I A ’ s l e ga l c onc l us i ons de novo, a c c or di ng C he vr on de f e r e nc e t o the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the i m m i gr a t i on l a w s . S e e C a de t , 377 F . 3d a t1185–8613

(“ T hu s, w here a s t atut e or r egul at i on i s s i l entor am bi gu ou s, w e a re ob l i ged t o d ef er t o the B IA ’ s i nt erpret at i on and app l i ca t i on of st atut es and regul at i on s i f that i nt erpret at i on i s r ea sonabl e. ”) . T h e R E AL I D A c tc h a n g e d th e b a s i c m e c h a n i s m o f f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l r e v i e w; cr i m i nal al i ens s ee ki ng re vi ew of an un succ es sf ul C A T cl ai m m ayno l on ger pr oc e e d i n habe a s . R a the r , the e xc l us i ve m e c ha ni s m f orj udi c i a l r e vi e w i s ape t i t i on for r evi ew fi l ed w i th the approp ri at e c ou rtof appeal s. 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (5); se e a l s o B a l ogun v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A G , 425 F . 3d 1356, 1359–60 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (e xp l ai ni ng ho w the R E A L ID A ctal t er ed “ do ub l e- l ay er ed re vi ew for c ri m i nal a l i e ns ” ) . W hi l e the m e c ha ni s m c ha nge d, how e ve r , the s c ope of ourr e vi e w of

the l aw di d n ot . A s w e observed rece nt l y i n A l exandre v. U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney G ener al , 45 2 F . 3d 12 04 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c uri am ), the R E A L ID A ct“ offe rs the sa m e s cope of revi ew as a habeas re m edy” i n a ca se i nv ol vi ng a c ri m i nal a l i e n’ s appe a l of

ar e m ova l or de r . I d. a t1206. A l e xa ndr e w a s notaC A T c a s e , but i tdi d c ons true the s a m e ge ne r a l l y appl i c abl e j ur i s di c t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons i m pos e d by the R E A L I D A c t . S e e i d. W e c a n s e e no r e a s on w hy the r e s ul ts houl d be di f f e r e nt in th e c o n te x t o f

r e v ie w in g aC A T c la im . I n d e e d , A le x a n d r e s p e c if ic a lly c ite d to C adet , the C A T ca se i n w hi ch w e det erm i ned thatre vi ew of the appl i ca t i on of l aw t o undi s put e d f

a c t s f a l l s w e l l w i thi n the s c ope of the c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on. S e e i d. ( c itin g C a d e t, 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 4 ) .14

T he ne c e s s a ry c onc l us i on w e dr a w f r om ourpr e c e de nta nd f r om the l angu age f

ou nd i n the R E A L ID A cti s thatw e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew Je an P i erre ’ s c l ai m i n so faras he chal l enges the appl i ca t i on of an un di sput ed fa ct pa tt e rn t o al e ga l s t a nda r d. T hi s c onc l us i on i s f ul l y c ons ona ntw i th the de c i s i ons re ac hed b y the other c ou rt s of app ea l thathave consi dere d the i ss ue. S ee R am adan v. G on za l es , 47 9 F . 3d 64 6, 65 4 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( per c uri am ) ( “ W e there fore concl ud e thatthe ph ra se ‘ qu es t i on s of l aw ’ as i ti s use d i n . . . the R ea l ID A ct i ncl ud es re vi ew of the appl i ca t i on of st atut es and regul at i on s t o u nd i sput ed hi s t or i c a l f

a c t s . T hi s c ons truc t i on i s a m pl y s uppor t e d by the s t a tut e a nd l e gi s l a t i ve h i st o ry, an d a n arro w er i n t erp ret at i o n w o u l d p o se a seri o u s S u sp en si o n C l au se i s s ue . ” ( f ootnot e om i tt e d) ) ; i d. a t650 ( “ ‘ [ Q ] ue s t i ons of l a w , ’ a s i ti s us e d i n [ the R E A L I D A c t ] , e xt e nds t o que s t i ons i nvol vi ng the appl i c a t i on of s t a tut e s or re gu l at i on s t o u nd i sput ed fa ct s, som et i m es re fe rr ed t o as m i xed q uest i on s of f ac t and l aw . ”) ; X i ao Ji C hen v . U . S . D ep’ tof Just i ce , 47 1 F . 3d 31 5, 32 6– 27 (2d C i r. 20 06 ) ( “ W e c on strue the i nt entof C on gres s’ s r es t orat i on un der the R E A L ID A ct rubri c of ‘ const i tut i on al cl ai m s or quest i on s of l aw ’ t o encom pass the sa m e types of i s s ue s tha tc our t s tr a di t i ona l l y e xe r c i s e d i n habe a s r e vi e w ove rE xe c ut i ve de t e nt i ons . ” ) ; K a m a r av. A tt ’ y G e n. of the U . S . , 420 F . 3d 202, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( h o ld in g th a t th e s c o p e o f r e v ie w u n d e rth e R E A L I D A c t “m irr o r s o u rp r e v io u s ly e n u n c ia te d s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w o v e ra n a lie n ’s h ab e a s p e titio n ” ) .15

T h i s a n a l y s i s i s a l s o f

u l l y c o n s i s t e n twi th th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o ry o f th e R E AL ID A ct . T he C on fe re nce R eportfor the A ctspec i fi ca l l y s ay s thatw hen “ pres ent ed w i th am i xe d que s t i on of l a w a nd f

a c t , the c our ts houl d a na l y z e i tt o the e xt e nt there ar e l egal el em ent s, bu tshou l d n otre vi ew any f ac tual el em ent s. ” C on fe re nce R e p o r t f o rth e R E A L I D A c t, H .R . R e p . N o . 1 0 9 - 7 2 , a t 1 7 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a s r e p r in te d in 20 05 U . S . C . C . A . N . 24 0, 30 0; se e a l so i d. (“ [W ] hi l e the re form s i n [8 U . S . C . § 1252] w oul d pr e c l ude c r i m i na l s f r om obt a i ni ng r e vi e w ove rnonconst i tut i on al , no n-l egal cl ai m s, i tw ou l d n otchange the sc op e of r evi ew that cr i m i nal al i ens c urre nt l y r ec ei ve . . . . ”) . W h e th e rap a r tic u la rf

a c t p a tte rn a m o u n ts to “to r tu r e ” r e q u ir e s ac o u r t to appl y al e ga l de f

i ni t i on t o as e tof

undi s put e d ora dj udi c a t e d hi s t or i c a l f a c t s . O ur r e s ol ut i on of

thi s i s s ue i n C a de tc oul d notha ve be e n c l e a r e r : “ w he the rthe cond i t i on s i n H ai t i an pri sons const i tut e t orture i s am i xed q uest i on of l aw and fact a s w e m u s t ap p ly C A T ’s le g a l d e f in itio n o f ‘to r tu r e ’ to th e f

a c ts o f w h a t h ap p e n s in H a i t i ’ s pr i s ons . ” 377 F . 3d a t1192. J e a n P i e rr e ’ s c l a i m s qua r e l y a nd una m bi guous l y r a i s e s thi s que s t i on. I n l i ghtof ourbi ndi ng pr e c e de nti n C a de ta nd A le x a n d r e , th e p e r s u a s iv e a u th o r ity o f th e o th e rc o u r ts o f

ap p e a l, a n d th e p la in la n g u a g e a n d le g is la tiv e h is to ry o f th e R E A L I D A c t, w e h a v e little d if f ic u lty in concl ud i ng thatthi s C ou rthas j uri sdi ct i on t o ent ert ai n w hether afa ctpatt ern const i tut es t orture.Properly speaking , the Convention itself provides no leg al protec tion. Bec ause the 5 Convention is not s elf-ex ecuting , a petitioner raisinga CAT claim is actually seekingrelief under theConvention’s implementing legislation, the Fore ign A ffairs Reform a nd Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L . No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (c odified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note). This Ac t states that “[i] t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise e ffe ct the involuntary return of any person to a c ountry

in which therearesubstantial groun ds fo r b e lievingthepers on would bein dang er o f b e ingsu

bje c te d totor

ture .”I d. ; se ealso Cadet, 377 F .3d at 1179–80 &n.3 (discussingthe ratification and implementation of the CAT) . For convenience, w e re fer

to J ean Pier

re’ s claim as a “ CAT claim.” 16 III. P l ai n l y, Jean P i erre i s su b j ectt o rem o v al fro m th e U n i t ed S t at es as a c r im in a l a lie n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 . C la im in g th a t h e w o u ld b e to r tu r e d if r e turne d t o hi s na t i ve H a i t i , J e a n P i e rr e appl i e d f orr e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C on vent i on A gai nstT orture. A s asi gn at ory t o the C on vent i on , the U ni t ed S t at es 5 has a gree d n ott o “ expel , re turn . . . or extra di t e apers on t o ano ther S t at e w here the r e a r e s ubs t a nt i a l gr ounds f orbe l i e vi ng tha the w oul d be i n da nge rof be i ng s ubj e c t e d t o t or tur e . ” C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n or D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nta r t . 3, § 1, D e c . 10, 1984, S . T r e a ty D oc . N o. 1 0 0 - 2 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 1 4 6 5 U .N .T .S . 8 5 . A n a lie n is e n title d to C A T p r o te c tio n if h e is

“ m ore l i kel y than n ott o b e t ortured i n the coun tryof re m ov al . ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c )( 4). T he pet i t i on erbear s the bu rden of proo f on thi s poi nt . S ee C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 80 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he l egi sl at i on and regul at i on s i m pl em ent i ng the C A T prov i de thatt orture i s a n “ extre m e f

orm of cruel and i nh um an tre atm entand d oes noti ncl ud e l es se r17

f orm s of c rue l , i nhum a n orde gr a di ng tr e a tm e ntorpuni s hm e nttha tdo nota m ount t o t orture. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 2); se e a l so C adet , 37 7 F . 3d at11 81 . M oreover, th e a c to rm u s t h a v e s p e c if ic a lly in te n d e d to in f

lic t s u c h s e v e r e p a in o rs u f f e r in g , 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 5), and the ac tm ustbe i nfl i ct ed for aproscr i bed p urpo se , i ncl ud i ng “ for a ny re as on base d o n d i sc ri m i nat i on of any ki nd , ” i d. § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 1). P ubl i c of f i c i a l s orothe rpe r s ons a c t i ng i n a n of f i c i a l c apa c i ty m us tbe i nvol ve d, and the tre atm entm ustbe di re ct ed ata per son w i thi n thei r c ust od y or physi ca l c ontr ol . S e e i d. ( r e f

e rr i ng t o “ pa i n ors uf

f e r i ng . . . i nf

l i c t e d by ora tthe i ns t i ga t i on o f o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f ap u b lic o f

f ic ia l o ro th e rp e r s o n a c tin g in an offi ci al capaci ty” ); i d. § 2 08 . 18 (a )( 7) (“ A cqui es ce nce of a publ i c off i ci al r e qui r e s tha tthe publ i c of f i c i a l , pr i ort o the a c t i vi ty c ons t i tut i ng t or tur e , ha ve a w a r e n e s s o f

s u c h a c tiv ity a n d th e r e a f te rb r e a c h h is o rh e rle g a l r e s p o n s ib ility to in te rv e n e to p r e v e n t s u c h a c tiv ity .” ) ; id . § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( “I n o r d e rto c o n s titu te t or tur e a n a c tm us tbe di r e c t e d a ga i ns tape r s on i n the of f e nde r ’ s c us t ody or ph ys i ca l control . ”) . J e a n P ie rr e ’s a r g u m e n t f o rC A T r e lie f

w a s b a s e d o n th e c la im th a t h e w ill l i ke l y be t or tur e d i n aH a i t i a n pr i s on w he n hi s A I D S i nf e c t i on, unc he c ke d by l i f e s a vi ng m e di c a t i on, i nf e c t s hi s m i nd a nd c a us e s hi m t o be ha ve i nappr opr i a t e l y or erra t i ca l l y. H e c l ai m s thatthe H ai t i an pri son g uards, ac t i ng ou tof fe aror prej ud i ce , w i l l l i ke l y be a thi m w i th m e t a l r ods , s tr i ke hi m aboutthe he a d a nd e a r s ( ka l ot18

m a r a s s a ) , a nd, pe rhaps m os tdi s turbi ngl y , l oc k hi m i n at i ny c r a w l s pa c e f orw e e ks orm onths w i thoutf

ood ore ve n r oom t o s t a nd upr i ght . T he B I A , l i ke the I J , di d not d ir e c tly a d d r e s s th is c e n tr a l c la im . T h e B I A s e e m s t o h a v e th o u g h tth a ttwo e a r l i e rc a s e s , I n r e J - E - , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . 291 ( B I A 2002) ( e n ba nc ) , a nd C a de tv. B ul ge r , 377 F . 3d 1173, di s pos e d of J e a n P ie rr e ’s c la im . T h e B I A c ite d to b o th c a s e s in o b s e rv in g th a t: T h e m e r e f

a c tth atth e H ai t i an g o v ern m en td o es n o tex em p tth o se c r i m i na l de por t e e s w ho s uf f e rf r om s ev er e m e di c a l c ondi t i ons f r om the i rde t e nt i on pol i c y , apol i c y w e h av e fo u nd t o be al e gi t i m a t e a nd l aw ful s a nc t i on , do e s no tc on s t i tut e t ortur e . Se e M a tt e rof J - E, s up r a. In addi t i on , as no t ed by the Im m i grat i on Judg e, no thi ng i n the re cord s uppor t s the not i on tha tthe H a i t i a n gove rnm e ntde l i berat el y c r e a t e s or m a in ta in s th e u n h y g ie n ic c o n d itio n s f o rp u rp o s e s o f

to r tu r i n g its det ai nees . (I . J. at21 ). S ee 8 C . F . R . §§ 12 08 . 18 (a )(1 ) an d (5). F urther, th e U n i t ed S t a t e s C our tof A ppe a l s f

orthe E l e ve nth C i r c ui t , the ju r is d ic tio n i n w h ic h th is c a s e a r is e s , h a s d e f e rr e d to o u rr e a s o n ab le in te rp r e ta tio n th a t p o l i c e b ru ta lity in H a iti, in c lu d in g “b e a tin g s , w ith f is ts , s tic k s , a n d b e lts ,” d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f to r tu r e p u r s u a n t to C A T . C a d e t v . B u lg e r , 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . E v e n if i n t en t i o n al , none of

the ha rm the r e s ponde ntm i ghtf a c e r i s e s above th a t w h ic h is c h a r a c te r iz e d in th e r e g u la tio n s a s “le s s e r f o r m s o f c ru e l, i nhum a n orde gr a di ng puni s hm e nt , ” a nd, the r e f or e , i tc a nnotbe deem ed t orture. R . at27 (f

oo tno t e om i tt ed). C adetand In re J -E - hel d, am on g o ther thi ng s, that H ai t i i s apo or coun try , and thati t s i nabi l i ty t o m ai nt ai n b ett erpri sons di d n otm ea n thati tt ortures tho se i tho l ds, even w hen i ti nd ef i ni t el y c on fi nes c ri m i nal s deport ed fr om the U ni t ed S t at es and m aysubj ec tthem t o m i stre atm entshortof t orture. S ee I n r e J - E , 2 3 I . & N . D e c . a t 3 0 1

– 0 4 ( h o ld in g th a t p o o rp r is o n c o n d itio n s , in d e f in iteB oth Cadet and

In reJ-E-a c kn ow le dg ethat so meof thea bu se s discus se d in

theState 6 Depa rtment Country

Reports on Haiti would, in fac t, constitute torture. See Cadet, 377 F.3d at 1195 (“[W] e re ad the B IA’s dec ision in J -E as acknowledging that cer tain isolated, vicious and de lib eratea c ts, su c h a s b ur ningwith c ig arette s, c ho king , h oo ding , kalot mara ssa , a

nd e le c tric shock do occur in Haitian prisons and that such ac ts constitute CAT-prohibited ‘torture .’”) . Whil e wedeferre d to the BIA’s determination that “[b] eating [s] with the fists, sticks, and belts,” were not torture but rather “lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or de gradingtreatment or punishment,” we w ereunpersuaded by the argument that such misconduct wa s somehow not intenti on al. S e eCadet, 3 77 F .3 d at 11 95 n. 20 (“We notethat th e sety pe s o f p hysic al a

bu sein Haiti an p ri so ns areintenti on al ac ts, a s opp os e d toine sc a pa blere sultsof

Haiti ’se c on omi c hardship. Ac cording ly , unlike the prison conditions addre ssed above , these ty pes of physical abuse c annot be de scribed a s ‘incident to’ a lawful sanc tion.”). 19 d e te n tio n o f

c r im in a l d e p o r te e s , a n d p o lic e m is tr e a tm e n t s u c h a s “[ b ]e a tin g w ith th e f is ts , s tic k s , a n d b e lts ,” w e r e n o t to r tu r e ) ; C a d e t, 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 3 ( d e f e rr in g to thi s i nt erpret at i on ). T ho se ca se s a re di ff

er ent . In bo th cas es , the pet i t i on er s f ai l ed because , a m ong othe r s , the y c oul d note s t abl i s h tha tthe y w oul d be i ndi vi dua l l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y s i ng l ed ou tfor har sh tre atm ent . A l tho ug h b oth p et i t i on er s produ ce d e vi de nc e of

ge ne r a l i z e d m i s tr e a tm e nta nd s om e i s ol a t e d i ns t a nc e s of t or tur e , the

6 evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o m ee tthe pet i t i on er s’ bu rdens of s ho w i ng thatthey w er e i nd i vi du al l y “ m ore l i kel y than n ott o b e t ortured i n the coun tryof re m ov al . ” 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) ( 4) ; s e e I n r e J - E - , 23 I . & N . a t304 ( “ [ W ] e f i nd tha tthe resp o n d en th as fai l ed t o est ab l i sh th atth ese sev ere i n st an ces o f m i streatm en tare so pe rva s i ve a s t o e s t abl i s h apr obabi l i ty tha tape r s on de t a i ne d i n aH a i t i a n pr i s on w i l l be s ubj e c tt o t or tur e , a s oppos e d t o othe ra c t s of c rue l , i nhum a n, orde gr a di ng p u n ish m en t o r tre atm en t. ”) ; C ad et, 3 7 7 F .3 d at 1 1 9 5 (f o cu sin g o n th e p etit io n er ’s20

f a i l ur e t o m a ke a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d s how i ng) ; s e e a l s o L a vi r av. A tt ’ y G e n. of the U . S . , 478 F . 3d 158, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( “ I tc a nnotbe que s t i one d tha tthe un di sput ed fa ct s L avi rapres ent ed i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m ar e notm er el y a n att ac k on the ‘ general st at e of a ff ai rs . ’ L avi ra ’ s C A T cl ai m det ai l s how gu ar ds w i l l tre at thi s H IV -posi t i ve pri soner . . . . T he fa ct s s up po rt i ng L avi ra ’ s c l ai m ar e ‘ evi dence t e ndi ng t o s how tha the f a c e s a n i nc r e a s e d l i ke l i hood of t or tur e ’ c om pa r e d t o the al i en i n M att erof J- E - . . . . ”) . J e a n P i e rr e ’ s c l a i m , a tboth s t a ge s of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e s s a nd on appeal , w as no tl i m i t ed t o the as se rt i on thatpl ac i ng a m an w i th A ID S i n a H ai t i an pr i s on a m ount s t o ade a th s e nt e nc e . I ns t e a d, a s athor ough r e vi e w of the 1, 500- p a g e r e c o r d r e v e a ls , J e a n P ie rr e ’s c e n tr a l c la im h a s a lw a y s b e e n th a t p la c in g th is m a n i n aH a i t i a n pr i s on, w i th gua r ds w ho be a tm e nt a l l y i l l pa t i e nt s w i th m e t a l r ods and l ock them i n sm al l cr aw l spac es , w ou l d v i ol at e the com m i tm entof the U ni t ed S t a t e s nott o r e m ove ape r s on w ho i s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n nott o be t or tur e d i n the c o u n try o f

r e m o v a l,” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) ( 4 ) . S e e , e .g ., R . a t 1 3 6 4 ( “P e o p le w ith m ent al heal th p robl em s a re si ng l ed ou tfor t orture i n the pri sons. . . . Je an P i erre wi l l a c ti n d e v i a n twa y s b e c a u s e o f th e m e n t a l h e a l th c o m p l i c a t i o n s o f h i s AI DS and thi s w i l l cause hi m t o b e s i ng l ed ou ti n the j ai l s of H ai t i and t ortured. ”) ; R . at 1372 ( “ T he i nc r e a s e d a tt e nt i on of H a i t i a n pr i s on gua r ds [ c a us e d by de vi a nt behavi or] i s e spec i al l y dangerous because coun trycond i t i on s r eport s c on fi rm that21

t or tur e oc c ur s i n H a i t i a n pr i s ons . ” ) ; R . a t1373 ( “ [ T ] he ge ne r a l pr a c t i c e i n the N a tio n a l P e n ite n tia ry w h e r e M r . J e a n P ie rr e w ill b e s e n t is to lo c k in d iv id u a ls w ith m ent al i l l ness i nt o a cr aw l spac e und erthe st ai rs . P eopl e l ocked i n the cr aw l spac e a r e notgi ve n f

ood t o e a ta nd a r e unabl e t o s t a nd f orl a c k of

r oom . ” ( c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) ) ; R . a t 1 3 7 6 ( “V io le n c e h a s b e e n d ir e c te d p a r tic u la r ly to w a r d th e m e n ta lly i l l i n H a i t i a n pr i s ons . . . . P e opl e w i th m e nt a l i l l ne s s a r e gi ve n the w or s tc ondi t i ons in p r is o n .” ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) ; R . a t 1 3 8 0 ( “W ith th e h ig h lik e lih o o d o f p s y c h ia tr ic c o m p lic a tio n s a n d c o n s e q u e n t d e v ia n t b e h a v io r s , M r . J e a n P ie rr e is h ig h ly lik e ly to b e c o m e at a r g e to f

v i o l e n c e f

r o m p r i s o n g u a r d s . . . a n d b e c o n f i n e d t o th e c r a wl s p a c e u n d e rth e s t a i r s . ” ) ; R. a t1 3 6 8 ( k a l o tma r a s s a ) ; R. a t1 3 6 9 ( k a l o tma r a s s a ) ; R. at13 75 (c ra w l spac e c on fi nem ent ); R . at13 78 (physi ca l vi ol ence and craw l -s pace c o n f in e m e n t) . T he go vernm entdi d n oti n any w aydi sput e the fa ct s und er l yi ng Je an P i e rr e ’ s c l a i m , a nd the I J f ound hi m t o be ac r e di bl e w i tne s s . I n hi s di s pos i t i on of the c l a i m , how e ve r , the I J di d notdi s c us s the ha r s he rf orm s of m i s tr e a tm e nt de t a i l e d by J e a n P i e rr e . M or e i m por t a nt l y , the B I A de c i s i on, the s ubj e c tof our r e vi e w , m a ke s no m e nt i on of ka l otm a r a s s a , c onf

i ne m e nti n ac r a w l s pa c e , or beat i ng s w i th m et al rods. T hese det ai l s a re om i tt ed despi t e the fa ctthatthe B IA has i t s e l f r e c ogni z e d ka l otm a r a s s aa s a n e xa m pl e of “ m i s tr e a tm e nti n H a i t i a n pr i s ons th atri se[s] t o th e l ev el o f t o rtu re. ” In re J-E -, 2 3 I. & N . D ec. at3 0 2 ; see al so22

C a d e t, 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 4

– 1 1 9 5 . A t b es t, th e B IA o p in io n ca n b e r ea d as o b li q u ely r ef er en cin g Je an P ierr e’s a r g u me n tth a th e w o u l d f a c e h a r s h e rtr e a tme n ta s ar e s u l to f me n t a l i l l n e s s . Se e R. a t26 ( r e f e r e nc i ng “ s om e e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t i ng tha tthos e , l i ke the re spon dent , w ho ar e m ent al l y i l l or af fl i ct ed w i th H IV m ayendu re hars her ci rc um st ance s a s are sul tof thei r m edi ca l cond i t i on ”) . In ou r vi ew , the B IA om i tt ed f r o m its a n a ly s is a n y r e v ie w o f th e m o s t im p o r ta n t f

a c ts p r e s e n te d in th is c a s e . T he r e i s , of

c our s e , a n i m por t a ntdi f f e r e nc e be tw e e n c ons i de r i ng the e vi de nc e a nd re ci t i ng i t ; the B IA need no tm ec hani ca l l y l i stevery pi ec e of e vi dence i n the re cord on i t s w a y t o r e nde r i ng ade c i s i on. S e e T a n v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 446 F . 3d 1369, 1376–77 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( obs e rvi ng tha t , a l though the I J m us tc ons i de ra l l the evi dence before hi m , he i s notre qu i re d t o d i sc uss e verypi ec e of e vi dence pres ent ed). B uti n thi s c as e, the B IA erre d i n app ar ent l y om i tt i ng fr om i t s r evi ew the c e ntr a l a nd undi s put e d f a c t s tha tdr i ve thi s pe t i t i on. M oreover, the B IA erre d i n fai l i ng t o add re ss the pet i t i on er ’ s e ss ent i al l egal a r g u m e n ts - - a r g u m e n ts s o c e n tr a l to J e a n P ie rr e ’s c la im th a t w e a r e u n ab le to r e v i e w th e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d b y th i s ap p e a l . J e a n Pi e rr e wa s n o tr e a r g u i n g I n r e J - Eand C adet . Inst ea d, he pres ent ed a new and d i ff er entl egal qu es t i on : w hether a p et i t i o n er i s en t i t l ed t o w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T orture w hen the un di sput ed evi dence s ee m s t o sho w thathe l i kel y w i l l be si ng l ed23

o u tfo r craw l -sp ace co n fi n em en t , k al o tm arassa, an d b eat i n g s w i th m et al ro d s as a r e s ul tof A I D S - r e l a t e d m e nt a l i l l ne s s . A s be s ta s w e c a n t e l l , the B I A di d not a n s w e rth is q u e s tio n . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a re constra i ned t o agree w i th Jea n P i erre thatthe B IA fa i l ed t o g i ve re as on ed consi dera t i on t o h i s c l ai m s. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c )( 3) (“ In a s s e s s in g w h e th e rit is m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t th a t a n ap p lic a n t w o u ld b e to r tu r e d in the prop osed coun tryof re m ov al , al l evi dence re l evantt o the po ss i bi l i ty of f uture t or tur e s ha l l be c ons i de r e d . . . . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; s e e , e . g. , L a vi r av. A tt ’ y G e n. o f th e U. S . , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 4 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( h o l d i n g , i n ac a s e i n v o l v i n g a n HI Vp o s itiv e c r im in a l a lie n w h o c la im e d th a t h e w o u ld b e s in g le d o u t f o rto r tu r e if r e turne d t o H a i t i , tha ta“ de c i s i on tha tf l a t l y i gnor e s the gr ounds pr e s e nt e d by the pet i t i on erfa i l s t o furni sh the C ou rtof A pp ea l s w i th the basi s f or i t s part i cul ar de c i s i on, a nd a s s uc h a ny m e a ni ngf ul r e vi e w i s notpos s i bl e ” ) ; s e e a l s o, e . g. , T a n v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 446 F . 3d 1369, 1375–77 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( gr a nt i ng ape t i t i on f or re vi ew of an appl i ca t i on for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al w hen the abse nce of a r e a s one d de c i s i on a nd a de qua t e f a c tua l f i ndi ngs l e f

tthe c our tunabl e t o r e vi e w the cl ai m ); M ez vri shvi l i v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 46 7 F . 3d 12 92 , 12 97 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( s a m e r e s ul ti n a n a s y l um c a s e ) ; E nw onw u v. G onz a l e s , 438 F . 3d 22, 35 (1stC i r. 20 06 ) ( re m andi ng a C A T det erm i nat i on t o the B IA because i tw as

“ i ns uf f i c i e nt l y r e a s one d a s am a tt e rof l a w ” ) ; A nt i povav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 39224

F . 3d 12 59 , 12 65 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( re m andi ng a pet i t i on for a sy l um t o the B IA be c a us e the c our tc oul d not“ unde r t a k[ e ] m e a ni ngf ul j udi c i a l r e vi e w of

the m er i t s” ). T he B I A i s obl i ge d t o r e s ol ve the ba s i c que s t i ons r a i s e d i n thi s C A T pe t i t i on i n the fi rs ti nst ance . S ee G on za l es v. T ho m as , 54 7 U . S . 18 3, 18 6 (20 06 ) ( per c ur i a m ) ( “ A c our tof

appe a l s ‘ i s notge ne r a l l y e m pow e r e d t o c onduc tade novo i nqui ry i nt o the m a tt e rbe i ng r e vi e w e d a nd t o r e a c h i t s ow n c onc l us i ons ba s e d on such an i nq ui ry . ’ ” ( qu ot i ng IN S v. V entura, 53 7 U . S . 12 , 16 (200 2) (percuri am )) ; s e e a l s o S a nc he z J i m e ne z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 492 F . 3d 1223, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( “ T he S upr e m e C our tha s i ns truc t e d tha t , w he n the I J orB I A ha s notm a de f i ndi ngs o f f a c t o rh a s n o t ap p lie d th e la w to th o s e f a c ts , ap p e lla te c o u r ts s h o u ld r e m a n d to a l l o w th e I J t o ma k e s u c h d e t e rmi n a t i o n s i n th e f i r s ti n s t a n c e . ” ) ; Lo p e z v . U . S. A tt ’ y G e n. , 490 F . 3d 1312, 1316 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( di s c us s i ng the “ or di na ry r e m a nd ru le ” ) . I nde e d, i n am ot i on f i l e d w i th us f

ol l ow i ng or a l a r gum e nti n thi s c a s e , the g o v e rn m e n t “a g r e e [ d ] th a t ar e m a n d to th e B o a r d w o u ld b e ap p r o p r ia te w ith i ns truc t i ons tha tthe a ge nc y c ons i de ra nd a ddr e s s the f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons c onc e rni ng w h eth er Jean P i erre, up o n h i s retu rn t o H ai t i , w o u l d b e su b j ectt o p h ysi cal ab u se a m ount i ng t o t or tur e ( t o i nc l ude ka l otm a r a s s a , c onf i ne m e nti n c r a w l s pa c e s a nd beat i ng s w i th m et al rods), as thatt erm has bee n d ef i ned b y r egul at i on s, B oard25

de c i s i ons , a nd thi s C our t , a s t o w a rr a ntde f e rr a l of r e m ova l unde rthe C onve nt i on A gai nstT orture . . . . G i ven the i m po rt ance of thi s i ss ue, the B oard shou l d h ave a n o p p o r tu n ity to a d d r e s s th is c la im in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e .” R e s p o n d e n t’s M o tio n to R e m a nd a t1–2. O n r e m a n d , th e B I A m u s t s q u a r e lya d d r e s s J e a n P ie rr e ’s c la im th a t h e lik e ly w i l l be s i ngl e d outf

orc r a w l - s pa c e c onf

i ne m e nt , be a t i ngs w i th m e t a l r ods , a nd k a lo t m a r a s s ain lig h t o f th e f iv e - p a r t a n a ly s is e m p lo y e d b y th is C o u r t in C a d e t. S e e 3 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 2 ( “[ F ]o ra n a c t to c o n s titu te ‘to r tu r e ’ u n d e rC A T a n d its i m pl em ent i ng re gu l at i on s, i tm ustbe: (1) a n actcausi ng se vere ph ys i ca l or m ent al pai n o r s uffe ri ng ; (2) i nt ent i on al l y i nfl i ct ed; (3) f or an i l l i ci tor proscr i bed p urpo se ; ( 4 ) b y o ra t th e in s tig a tio n o f o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f ap u b lic of f i c i a l w ho ha s c us t ody orphy s i c a l c ontr ol of the vi c t i m ; a nd ( 5) nota r i s i ng f r om l aw ful sa nct i on s. ”) ; i d. at11 95 (f ocusi ng on w hether the pet i t i on erpres ent ed evi dence “ qu al i t at i vel y di ff er entthan o r s up er i or t o the J- E - r ec ord”). T he es se nt i al prob l em w e f ac e i s thatw e a re un abl e t o m ea ni ng ful l y r evi ew th e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e l aw o f t o rtu re t o th e b asi c fact s o f th e case w i th o u tfi rst havi ng the benefi tof the B IA ’ s r evi ew and res ol ut i on of Je an P i erre ’ s c entra l c l a i m . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a r e r e q u i r e d t o GR AN T J e a n P i e rr e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, V A C A T E the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, a nd R E M A N D f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s opi ni on.26

VA C AT E D A ND R E MAND E D.