2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-29-2005 

# Kam ara v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2647

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" K am ar a v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 583. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/583P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 2647

M OHA M ED KAM ARA

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, * A ppel l ant
O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 75 805 924) I ni t i al l ydocket ed as an A ppeal fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t of Penns y l vani a pr i ort o enac t m entof the R E A L I D A ct

( D
. C
. N o. 02- cv- 00738) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

A r gued M ay9, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge ** ( Fi l ed: A ugus t29, 2005 )

B ec au se w e h av e c o n v erted the p rese n t case into a p eti ti o n fo r * di r ectr evi ew , w e ar e r equi r ed t o s ubs t i tut e the A t t orney G ener al forthe curr entr es pondent( D epart m entof H om el and S ec u ri ty ). 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(3 )(A ). H o n . L o u is H
. P o ll ak , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r ** t he East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 Pet erD
. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al D onal d E
. K eene r D ep u tyD ir ec tor A li so n R
. D ruc k er (A rgu ed ) Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20044 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant J ames V
. W ade Feder al Publ i c D efe nder R onal d A
. K r aus s ( A r gued) A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder H arr i s bur g, PA l 7101 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity(“ D H S ” ) a p p e a ls the O rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ti n g M o h am ed K am ara ’s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus and perm anent l yenj oi ni ng the governm entfr om deport i ng K amar a t o Si err a Leone. I. Fact s and Pr ocee di ngs T he part i es s t i pul at ed i n a j oi ntm ot i on, fi l ed on A pr i l 13,T h e st i pu l at i on provided thatthe fa ct s r el at i ng to 1 K amar a’ s habea s pet i t i on ar e n o t in di s put e, and thatthe i s s ue b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt w a s p u re lyleg a l. 3 2004, t o t he fol l ow i ng fac t s : K amar a, a nat i ve of Si err a Leone, 1 w as s tudy i ng m edi ci ne i n C uba i n the ea r l y1980s on a gr ant f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t o f

S ier ra L e o n e . In th e c o u rse o f h is s tudi es i n C uba, the Si err a Leone governm entfai l ed t o pr ovi de the fi nanci al s uppor ti thad pr om i s ed. I n r es pons e, K amar a and o th e r S ier ra L e o n e stu d e n ts s to rm e d th e S ier ra L e o n e e m b a ss yin C uba, phy s i cal l yacc os t ed the Si err a Leoni an A m bas s ador , and p u b lic ly ac c u s e d th e S ie rr a L e o n e g o v e rn m e n t o f c o rr u p tio n . Shor t l yther eaf

t er , i n 1982, K amar a w as “deport ed” ( expel l ed) fr om C uba atthe di r ect i on of off i ci al s of the Si err a Leone g o v e rn m e n t, an d re q u ire d to re tu rn to S ier ra L e o n e . W h ile in tr ans i tthr ough M i ami , Fl or i da on a non- i m m i gr anttr ans i tvi s a, K amar a l eftthe ai rpor t
. H e has r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es evers i nce. O n A p ri l 23 , 1 9 9 9 , K am ara w as c o n v ict ed in a N ew Y o rk St at e C our tof att empt ed s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ( coca i ne) in th e th ir d d e g re e , a n d s e n te n c e d to s ix m o n th s in c a rc e ra tio n . T he convi ct i on ar os e af t erunder coverpol i ce of fi cer s appr oache d K amar a and of

fer ed hi m $10 t o hel p them buycoca i ne. K amar a, w ho l i ved i n a drug i nfes t ed ar ea, compl i ed w i th the r eques tand w as ther eaf

t erarr es t ed. O n J une 18, 1999, the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) ( w hi ch has s i nce be en r epl ace d bythe D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty , B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement ) comm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tK amar a on the gr ounds thathe w as an al i en c o n v ic te d o f

a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya s d e f

in e d in 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( U ) , an al i en convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance l aw , and an a l i en w ho r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St at es f o r a tim e lo n g e r t h a n p e rm itte d . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ), (a)(2)(B )(i ), (a)(1)(B ). K amar a appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval under§ 241( b) ( 3) of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct ( “I N A ”) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1231( b) ( 3) , and forpr ot ect i on undertheT he C A T refer s t o the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainst 2 T or tu re and O therC ruel , I nhum an orD egr adi ng T r eatm entor Puni s hm ent , D ec. 10, 1984, 1465 U
. N
. T
. S. 85, i m pl ement ed i n the U ni t ed St at es bythe F or ei gn A ffa i r s R eform and R es tructur i ng A ct of 1998, Pub. L
. N o. 105- 277, § 2242, 112 St at
. 2681- 761 ( codi fi ed at 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 3 1 ). 4 C A T
. O n February25, 2000, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”)

2 i s s ued an or al opi ni on gr ant i ng K amar a’ s appl i cat i on for w i thhol di ng of r emoval , r eas oni ng that“i n thi s cas e the w i des pr ead a tr oci t i es agai ns tpeopl e oppos i ng the author i tyof the form ergovernm entand pr es entm i l i t aryr ebel for ces [the R evol ut i onaryU ni t ed Fr ont( “R U F”) ] i ndi cat es a gr eat erchanc e, r atherthan a l es s erchanc e thatthe r es pondentw i l l be per s ecut ed f o rwh o h e i s u p o n h i s r e tu rn . ” S u p p . Ap p . a t2 1
. I n th e s a me or al deci s i on, the I J pr et erm i nat ed K amar a’ s appl i cat i on for as y l um , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158( b) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) , ( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ( pr ovi di ng thatan al i en convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed fe l onyi s notel i gi bl e for asy lum ), an d h eld th at giv en it s d ec isi o n to g ran t K am ara ’s pet i t i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , i tw as unnece s s aryt o r eac h th e CAT c l a i m. O n O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 , the B u re a u o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” or“B oar d”) r ever s ed the dec i s i on of the I J , s t at i ng that ther e i s “i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d t o s ugges tthat any one i n Si err a Leone w oul d w antt o per s ecut e [K amar a] for an yco m p lai n ts he m ad e w h il e a stud en t i n C u b a o v er 2 0 y ea rs ago. ” J
. A
. at19. T he ca s e w as r emanded t o the I J for cons i der at i on of w hetherK amar a w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rthe CA T. A t an e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g h eld o n Jan u ary1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , the IJ hear d addi t i onal t es t i m onyfr om K amar a, r ece i ved t es t i m ony fr om K amar a’ s ni ece , and ac cept ed i nt o evi dence i nform at i on a b o u t co u n tryc o n d iti o n s in S ier ra L e o n e . T h e IJ f o u n d b o th K amar a and hi s ni ece cr edi bl e, and ther eaf t er , i n a w r i t t en o p in io n d a ted Ju ly1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , ac c e p ted th e ir tes tim o n ya s th e f a c ts of the ca s e.5 T h e testi m o n ial an d o ther e v iden ce reg ard ing co u n try c o n d iti o n s re v e a led th a t as o f Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 , S ier ra L e o n e w a s in the mi ds tof a c i vi l w ar . T he R U F contr ol l ed tw o thi r ds of the c o u n tr y , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t c o n tr o lle d th e re m a in in g o n e th ir d
. E a c h e n tityh a d a n e sta b lish e d re c o rd o f g rie v o u s h u m a n rig h ts viol at i on s. T h e se v e ra l co u n tryre p o rts a n d v a rio u s m e d ia p u b l i c a t i o n s ( N e w Y o r k T i m e s , T i m e M a g a z i n e , U S A T o d a y ) r ece i ved bythe I J m ade pl ai n that“[t ] her e i s har dl ya rul i ng body in th e w o rld
. . . tha t m a tch e s th e R U F a n d its a lli e d f o rc e s f o r its utt er i nh um anityt o p eop l e un der i t s contr ol. ” J. A
. at26
. T he IJ, cont i nui ng r efe r ence t o the countryr eport s , s t at ed thatthe r ebel gr oup, w hi ch w as the mi l i t arybr anch of the Si err a Leone governm entbefor e the r evol ut i on, has ki l l ed thous ands of unarm ed ci vi l i ans , i ncl udi ng w om en and c hi l dr en ( m anydur i ng m a ss e x e c u tio n s), a n d m a im e d c o u n tles s o th e rs th ro u g h its “‘par t i cular l yvici ou s pract i ce of cutt i ng off

ears , no ses, han ds, arm s , and l egs of noncombat ant s as a del i ber at e t err ort act i c . . . ’ ” J. A
. at 26 -27 (qu o ti n g 1 9 9 9 C o u n tryR ep o rt ). W o m en w ere s y s t emat i cal l yr aped bym ember s of the r ebel gr oup, and men w ho r efus ed t o r ape thei row n fami l ym ember s had l i m bs amput at ed. T he I J found that“the R U F carr i ed outa patt ern of abduct i ng thos e fr om the out s i de w ho demonstr at ed anys peci al c a p a b ili ties : ‘R e b e l f

o rc e s a b d u c ted c iv ili a n s, m iss io n a rie s, a id w or ker s fr om nongovernm ent al agenc i es , U
. N
. per s onnel , and jo u rn a lis ts .’” J .A . a t 2 7 (q u o tin g 1 9 9 9 C o u n tr yR e p o rt ). L i kew i s e, theydel i ber at el yt ar get ed and mur der ed “‘ governm ent offi ci al s , hum an r i ght s act i vi s t s , r el i gi ous l eade r s , and l aw y er s as theyen tered F ree tow n . ’” J.A
. at 27 (qu o ti n g 1 9 9 9 C o u n try R ep o rt ). T he Si err a Leone governm ent , though cl ear l ynotas b ru tal a s th e R U F , als o h a d “ se rio u s p ro b lem s” re f lec ted in its h u m an ri g h ts r ec o rd. J. A
. at 29
. T h e 1 9 9 9 C o u n tryR ep o rt r ecount s i nci dent s of extr aj udi ci al ki l l i ngs , s um m aryexec ut i ons of s us pect ed r ebel s and s us pect ed r ebel col l abor at or s , beat i ngs of noncombat ant s , as w el l as arbi tr aryarr es tand det ent i on of p e rso n s. F u rth e rm o re , “d isc rim in a tio n b a se d o n e th n ic o rig in [w as ] w i del ypr act i ced.
. . . ” J
. A
. at29.6 A s an i ni t i al m att er , the I J det erm i ned thataki n t o the T a lib a n in A f

g h a n ista n a n d th e Isr a e li D e f e n se F o rc e s in Pal es t i ni an Lands, the R U F shoul d be cons i der ed a “ pol i t i cal offi ci al ” ( or“governm ent ”) forpurpos es of the C A T , and ther efor e thatK amar a’ s cl ai m forpr ot ect i on agai ns tt or tur e by the R U F shoul d be hea r d on the mer i t s . See 8 C
. F. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( s t a t i n g th a tt o r e c e i v e p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rCA T, appl i cantm us ts how thatt or tur e w i l l be “i nfl i ct ed byoratthe in stig a tio n o f

o r w ith th e c o n se n t o r a c q u ies c e n c e o f a p u b lic o ff ici al or o ther p erso n ac ti n g in an o ff ici al ca p ac ity ”). T h e IJ th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t b a se d o n th e tes tim o n yo f K a m a ra a n d h is niece, and the “am ple evi den ce of gross, fl agrant , or m ass v io latio n s o f

h u m a n rig h ts in S ier ra L e o n e . . . itis m o re lik e ly than n o t th at resp o n d en t w il l be to rtu red if return ed to S ierra L eone t oday
. ” J
. A
. at30 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i ons o m itted). T h e IJ r e a so n e d th a t “[ i]f th e re sp o n d e n t sh o u ld f a ll i n to th e R U F ’s h a n d s , to rt u re is a ll b u t c e rt a in .” J .A . a t 2 8
. K amar a’ s fami l yhad al r eadys uffe r ed a gr eatdeal atthe hands of th e R U F . T h e f

a m ilyh o m e w a s b u rn e d d o w n , K a m a ra ’s c o u sin h ad h is ha n d s ch o p p ed o ff , h is au n t w as sh o t, the s am e a u n t’ s hus band di ed w hi l e tr apped i n a hous e thatw as s eton fi r e bythe R U F, and K amar a’ s br other

- i n- l aw , w ho has s i nce di ed, had m anypr opert i es des tr oy ed, i ncl udi ng the M us l i m s chool thathe fo u n d ed
. K am ara ’s m o ther, si ster, an d au n t j o ined the “ m o re th a n 1 m ill io n c iti z e n s” w h o f led th e c o u n tryo r w e re in ter n a lly di s pl ace d. J
. A
. at27. T he I J , r ei t er at i ng hi s fi ndi ngs fol l ow i ng the fi r s thear i ng, al s o found thatthe r el evantfac t s m ade “ r eas onabl e and al t ogetherpl aus i bl e [K amar a’ s ] conce rn thathe w i l l be s i ngl ed o u t b yth e g o v e rn m e n t f o r a b u siv e tre a tm e n t in v io latio n o f h is per s onal s ecur i tyi f he i s deport ed ther e” be caus e of hi s pr i or pr ot es t s i n C uba tw entyy ear s befor e. J
. A
. at29. T he I J not ed addi t i onal l ythatK amar a w i l l be hi ghl ynot i cea bl e “be caus e of hi s l ong abs ence fr om the countrycoupl ed w i th hi s bei ng among the s m al l m i nor i tyof el i t es i n the country[w hi ch i s onl y20% l i t er at e] ( byr eas on of educ at i on, fami l ybackgr ound, w eal th, and exper i ence abr oad)
. ” J
. A
. at30.K amar a al s o fi l ed a mot i on foremer gencys t ayof 3 r emoval , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tel ect ed t o tr eatas a pet i t i on for w r i tof habe as corpus , and byor derdat ed M ay30, 2002, co n s o lid ated the a cti o n s. O n Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , the D istri ct C o u rt i s s ued an O r ders t at i ng thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe habea s pet i t i on. O n appea l , thi s courti s s ued a j udgm entvaca t i ng th e D istric t C o u rt’s J u ly2 5 , 2 0 0 2 O rd e r a n d re m a n d in g th e c a se , in 7 B al anci ng the very“r eal ” pr obabi l i tythatK amar a may f a ll i n to R U F h a n d s (a n d th e “ c e rta in ” to rtu re th a t w o u ld re su lt) w ith th e “ n e a rlyc e rta in ” p ro b a b ili tyth a t K a m a ra w ill f a ll i n to the governm ent ’ s hands , ( and the “r eas onabl e” c hance of “abus i ve tr eatm enti n vi ol at i on of hi s per s onal s ecur i ty ” that w oul d r es ul t ) , the I J found thatK amar a’ s appl i cat i on forr el i ef underthe C A T s houl d be gr ant ed. J
. A
. at28- 29. G i ven the addi t i onal fac tfi ndi ng, the I J al s o cl ar i fi ed the fa ct s s urr oundi ng K amar a’ s pet i t i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval , i n the eve ntthat th e B IA d e c id e d to re v is it th e is s u e o n a p p e a l. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3)
. T he I J not ed, how ever , thatthe B I A ’ s l aw of the cas e pr ecl uded hi m fr om gr ant i ng w i thhol di ng of r emoval atthat st age in the p roceedings. T he I N S once aga i n appea l ed the dec i s i on of the I J , and on A pr i l 5, 2002, i n a s i x par agr aph dec i s i on, the B I A s us t ai ned the appe al
. T he B oar d fi r s tr eas oned that , gi ven the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs that“i tcannotbe found t o be more l i kel ythan notthat[the r es pondent ] w oul d fi nd hi m s el f i n the R U F’ s hands , ” ther e w as no r eas on t o di s cus s the l i kel i hood of t or tur e bythe R U F or w hetherthe R U F cons t i tut es a governm entforpurpos es of the C A T . J.A . at 3 7 . T h e B IA th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t K a m a ra f a iled to m eethi s bur den of pr oof thathe w oul d fac e “t or tur e” a tthe hands of the Si err a Leone governm ent
. J
. A
. at37- 38 ( s t at i ng th a t“ ‘ a b u s i v e tr e a t m e n t ’ v i o l a t i v e o f o n e ’ s ‘ p e r s o n a l s e c u r i ty’ does notcons t i tut e t or tur e, as defi ned bythe r egul at i ons ”) ( ci t i ng 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 8 (a)). O n A pr i l 23, 2002, K amar a fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habea s corpus i n t he M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, chal l engi ng the dec i s i on of the B I A
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed 3l i ght o f o u rd e c i s i o n i n Ogb u d i mpk a v . As h c r o f t , 3 4 2 F. 3 d 2 0 7, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng thatdi s tr i ctcourts have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 4 1 t o r e v i e w CAT c l a i ms f o r“ e rr o r s o f

l a w, i ncl udi ng the err oneous appl i cat i on ori nt erpr et at i on of s t atut es ”) (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). 8 th e w rit, h o ld in g th a t “[ t]h e c u rso rya n d e rro n e o u s re v iew o f th is cas e bythe [BIA ] vi ol at ed K amar a’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of law ,” a n d th a t “[ w ]h e n th e [ C A T ] re g u latio n s a re p ro p e rly cons trued, the undi s put ed evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o m eetthe r equi r ement s forr el i ef. ” J
. A
. at70- 71. T he C our tal s o hel d that d ep o rt ing K am ara to S ierra L eo n e w o u ld v iolate K am ara ’s su b stan ti v e d u e p roc ess righ ts un d er the “state-cre ated d an g er” exce pt i on. See, e. g. , K nei pp v. T edder , 95 F. 3d 1199, 1208 ( 3d C i r . 1996)
. Fi nal l y , the C our ti s s ued a pe r m anenti nj unct i on agai ns tr emoval
. D H S fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l on J une 9, 2004. II.

J ur i s di ct i on /St andar d of R evi ew A
. J ur i s di ct i on U nt i l M ay11 of thi s y ear , an al i en convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand r emovabl e on s uch gr ounds w as s t atut or i l ybarr ed fr om fi l i ng a pet i t i on forr evi ew i n the courtof appea l s chal l engi ng the B I A ’ s fi ndi ng thats /he w as i nel i gi bl e for rel i ef un der the C A T
. S ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 25 2(a) (2) (C ); see al so B akhtr i gerv. E l w ood, 360 F. 3d 414, 420 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; Pat el v. A sh c ro f t, 29 4 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e h e ld in O g b u d im k p a , h o w e v e r, th a t a d istric t co u rt re tain s ju risd ictio n to cons i dercl ai m s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the C A T r ai s ed i n a habe as corpus pet i t i on. 342 F. 3d at222; s ee a l s o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2241. T hi s j ur i s di ct i onal fr amew or k w as r adi cal l yoverhaul ed on M ay11, 2005, w i th the pas s age of the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , 1 1 9 S tat. 2 3 1 . T h e p ro v isio n re lev a n t to th is appea l , Sect i on 106( a) of the A ct , amends 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2)8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( e) al l ow s forveryl i m i t ed habe as r evi ew 4 in ex p ed it ed rem o v al ca ses b rou g h t un d er 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 5 (b). 9 t o el i m i nat e the di s tr i ctcourt s ’ habea s corpus j ur i s di ct i on ( 28 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 1 , 1 3 6 1 , an d 1 6 5 1 ) o v e r f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l in n e a rlya ll ca se s. S e c tio n 1 0 6 (a )(1 )(B ) p ro v id e s th a t: 4 N otw i ths t andi ng anyotherpr ovi s i on of l aw ( s t atut oryornons t atut ory ) , i ncl udi ng s ect i on 2241 of Ti t l e 28, oranyotherhabea s corpus pr ovi s i on, and s ect i ons 1361 and 1651 of s uch t i t l e, a pet i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed w i th an appr opr i at e courtof appea l s i n acc or dance w i th thi s s ect i on s hal l be the s ol e and e xcl us i ve means forj udi ci al r evi ew of any caus e orcl ai m underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O therFor m s of C ruel , I nhum an, orD egr adi ng T r eatm entor Puni s hm ent , exce ptas pr ovi ded i n s ubs ect i on ( e) of thi s s ect i on. R E A L I D A ct§ 106( a) ( 1) ( B ) ; 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 4)
. Sect i on 106( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) of the A ct , how ever , amends 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252 b ya d d in g a n e w p ro v isio n , § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), w h ich sta tes th a t: N othi ng i n s ubpar agr aph ( B ) or( C ) , ori n anyother pr ovi s i on of thi s A ct( otherthan thi s s ect i on) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be cons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on forr evi ew fi l ed w i th an appr opr i at e courtof appea l s i n acc or dance w i th thi s s ect i on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). W ith th is a m e n d m e n t, C ongr es s evi dence d i t s i nt entt o r es t or e j udi ci al r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw pr es ent ed i n pet i t i ons forr evi ew of fi nal rem ov al orders
. T his no w perm i t s al l al i ens, i ncl udi ng cr i m i nal al i ens , t o obt ai n r evi ew of10 cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw upon f ili n g o f a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith a n a p p ro p ria te cou rtof ap peals
. Papageor gi ou v. G onzal es , 413 F. 3d 356, 358 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; s ee a ls o F e rn a n d e z -R u iz v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 0 F .3 d 5 8 5 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C o n g re ss e x p licitlym a d e th e a b o v e a m e n d m e n ts re tro a c tiv e . R E A L ID A c t § 1 0 6 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , “s hal l t ake e ffe ctupon the dat e of the ena ctm ent of thi s di vi s i on and s hal l appl yt o cas es i n w hi ch the fi nal admi ni s tr at i ve or derof r emoval
. . . w as i s s ued bef or e, on, or aft er the d at e of the enac t m ent of this divi si on . ” S ee al so Papageor gi ou, 413 F. 3d at358. F u rt h e rm o re , h a b e a s p e titio n s f ile d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2241, w hi ch as of M ay11, 2005, w er e pendi ng i n the di s tr i ct court s , s hal l be tr ans ferr ed t o the courtof appe al s forthe ci r cui ti n w hi ch a pet i t i on forr evi ew coul d have be en pr oper l yfi l ed unders ect i on 242( b) ( 2) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252) , as amended by thi s s ect i on. . . . T he courtof appe al s s hal l tr eat the tr ans ferr ed ca s e as i f i thad bee n fi l ed pur s uant t o a pet i t i on forr evi ew unders uch s ect i on 242, exce ptthats ubs ect i on ( b) ( 1) of s uch s ect i on [r el at i ng t o t he 30- dayfi l i ng deadl i ne] s hal l not a p p l y. R E A L ID A c t § 1 0 6 (c ). T he R E A L I D A cti s s i l entas t o the exa ctpr ocedur al p o sture w h ich f

ac es u s h ere , i. e., an ap p ea l from a d istri ct co u rt ’s h a b e a s d e c is io n th a t is n o w p e n d in g b e f o re th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls
. N onethel es s , as expl ai ned i n B onhom etr e v. G onzal es , F. 3d

, N o . 0 4 -20 3 7 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 6 5 3 6 4 1 (3d C ir
. Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ), D es pi t e thi s s i l ence , i ti s r eadi l yappar ent , gi ven C o n g re ss ’ c lea r in ten t to h a v e a ll ch a llen g e s to11 rem o v al ord ers h ea rd in a sin g le fo rum (th e c o u rt of appe al s ) , [H
. R
. C onf. R ep. N o. 109- 72] at174 [(2 0 0 5 )], that tho se h ab ea s p eti ti o n s tha t w ere pendi ng befor e thi s C our ton the ef fec t i ve dat e of th e R E A L ID A c t ar e p ro p e rlyc o n v e rte d to p e titio n s f

o r r e v ie w a n d re ta in e d b yth is C o u rt
. I d. at*2. T o di s m i s s the pr es entcas e w oul d be arbi tr ary( by tr eat i ng habea s pet i t i ons w hi ch ar e pendi ng r es ol ut i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt s di ffe r ent l ythan habe as pet i t i ons w her e a de ci s i on has al r eadybeen r ender ed, i n m anycas es i n favorof the al i en) and i s i ncons i s t entw i th C ongr es s ’ expr es s i nt entt o pr ovi de al i ens w i th one cha nce f orj udi ci al r evi ew i n the courtof appea l s . See H
. R
. C onf. R ep. N o. 109- 72, at174- 76 ( 2005) ; cf. So r r e l l s v . Uni t e d St a t e s , 2 8 7 U. S. 4 3 5 , 4 5 0 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ( “ To con strue st atutes so as t o av oid absurd or gl ari ng l yun j ustres ult s, f o re ig n to th e le g is la tiv e p u rp o s e , is , a s w e h a v e s e e n , a tr ad it ion al an d ap p rop ri ate f u n cti o n o f th e c o u rt s. ”). T hus , i n l i ghtof the pec ul i arpr ocedur al pos tur e of the p re se n t ca se , an d th e in ter v e n in g p a ss a g e o f th e R E A L ID A c t, w e a re o b li g ed to v ac ate a n d d isr eg ard the D istri ct C o u rt ’s opi ni on and addr es s the cl ai m s r ai s ed i n K amar a’ s habea s pet i t i on as i f theyw er e pr es ent ed bef or e us i n the fi r s ti ns t ance as a pet i t i on forr evi ew . B onhom etr e, 2005 W L 1653641, at*2. B
. Scope of Revi ew A l though D H S’ s appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng K amar a’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on has now been convert ed i nt o a pet i t i on forr evi ew , ours t andar d of r evi ew re m a in s th e s a m e . B o n h o m e tr e , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 6 5 3 6 4 1 , a t * 2 . A r evi ew for“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw , ” as d e s c ri b e d in § 1 0 6 (a )( 1 )( A )( iii) o f th e R E A L ID A c t, 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) , m i r r or s ourpr evi ous l yenunci at ed s t andar d of r evi ew overan al i en’ s habea s pet i t i on. See B akhtr i ger , 360 F. 3d at 42 5 (“In the w ak e o f [ IN S v . S t. C yr, 5 3 3 U
. S
. 2 8 9 (20 0 1 )], w e ar e notaw ar e of a nycas es thathave uphe l d habea s r evi ew of fac tual fi ndi ngs ordi s cr et i onarydet erm i nat i ons i n cr i m i nal al i en r emoval cas es . R ather , al l ci r cui t s t o deci de the i s s ue haveInd ee d , if the R E A L ID A ct i m p o sed a n arro w er stan d ard 5 of r evi ew t han that pr evi ous l y offe r ed under a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus , a s i gni fi cantSuspe ns i on C l aus e i s s ue w oul d ar i s e. 12 l i m i t ed cr i m i nal al i en habe as pet i t i ons t o cons t i tut i onal ch all en g es o r errors o f law
. ”). 5 T h u s, ex am ining ea ch o f K am ara ’s pre sen t cl aim s, w e a re l i m i t ed t o “pur e ques t i ons of l aw , ” St
. C yr , 533 U
. S. at305, and to “issu es o f a p p li ca ti o n o f law to f ac t, w h ere the f

ac ts are undi s put ed and notthe s ubj ectof cha l l enge. ” B akhtr i ger , 360 F. 3d at420 ( ci t i ng O gbudi m kpa, 342 F. 3d at222)
. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s l egal deci s i ons de novo, W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , butw i l l aff or d C hevr on defe r ence t o the B I A ’ s r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i ons of s t atut es w hi ch i ti s char ged w i th admi ni s t er i ng. I N S v. A gui rr e- A gui rr e, 526 U
. S. 415, 424 (1 9 9 9 ); C h e v ro n U .S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s . D e f. C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U
. S
. 8 3 7 , 8 4 2 (19 8 4 ). III . D i s cus s i on A
. T he B I A ’ s R evi ew of the I J ’ s D eci s i on K amar a ar gues thatthe B I A vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght t o m eani ngful r evi ew byengagi ng i n a cur s oryeval uat i on of the I J ’ s evi dent i aryfi ndi ngs and l egal concl us i ons , and byi s s ui ng an inad eq u ate o p inion
. S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e c o n tend s tha t th e B IA ’s o p in io n c o n sis ted o f

o n lysix p a ra g ra p h s, w ith n o a d e q u a te anal y s i s ordi s cus s i on, and thati tr el i ed on an i rr el evants ect i on o f th e I J ’ s wr i t t e n d e c i s i o n h a v i n g n o th i n g t o d o wi th th e CA T c l a i m. A l i ens fac i ng r emoval ar e ent i t l ed t o due pr oces s . See Sew ak v. I N S, 900 F. 2d 667, 671 ( 3d C i r . 1990)
. I n the admi ni s tr at i ve cont ext , an al i en: “( 1) i s ent i t l ed t o fac t fi ndi ng bas ed on a r ecor d pr oduced be for e the dec i s i onm akerand d isc lo se d to h im o r h e r, (2 ) m u st b e a llo w e d to m a k e a rg u m e n ts13 on hi s orherow n behal f .
. . ; and ( 3) has the r i ghtt o an i ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on of hi s [orher ] i nt er es t s . ” A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 549 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. K amar a does notcont end that the dec i s i on t o r emove hi m w as bas ed on evi dence kepts ecr et fr om hi m orthathe w as pr event ed fr om m aki ng hi s cas e t o the B IA o r IJ . T h u s, th e o n lyd u e p ro c e ss rig h t p o ten tially i m pl i cat ed i n t hi s cas e i s the r i ghtt o an i ndi vi dual i zed det erm i nat i on. A s st at ed in A bd ulai , “t he q uest i on for du e process purpos es i s notw hetherthe B I A r eac hed the corr ectdeci s i on; r atheri ti s s i m pl yw hetherthe B oar d m ade a n i ndi vi dual i zed det erm i nat i on of [the al i en’ s ] i nt er es t
. . . . ” 239 F. 3d at550 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T he B oar d’ s deci s i on need onl ypr ovi de “s uffi ci enti ndi ci a” thats uch a de t erm i nat i on w as m ade. I d. (“[o]ne can d edu ce t hat the B IA w as aw are that A bd ulai w as a N i ger i an s eeki ng as y l um on the bas i s of pol i t i cal per s ecut i on, thatther e had be en i s s ues i nvol vi ng a cha nge i n the N i ger i an governm entand hi s fai l ur e t o documenthi s m ember s hi p i n a pol i t i cal party , and thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on evi nced di s s at i s fac t i on w ith h is m e e tin g th e re q u isite b u rd e n o f p ro o f. T h is is s uffi ci ent
. ”)
. A gencyact i on i s ent i t l ed t o a pr es um pt i on of reg u lari ty , an d itis th e p eti ti o n er’s b u rde n to sh o w that the B IA di d notr evi ew the r ecor d w hen i tcons i der ed the appe al
. I d. at 550- 51. T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n the pr es entcas e cont ai ns m or e than “s uffi ci enti ndi ci a” thati tundert ook an i ndi vi dual i zed det erm i nat i on. I tdes cr i bes i n det ai l the C A T pet i t i on s ubm i t t ed byK amar a, the pr ocedur al pos tur e of the ca s e, the bas i s forthe IJ ’s decis i on , and the rel evan tst atutes and regul at i on s. W e f ind n o su p p o rtfo r K am ara ’s co n tention that the B IA err oneous l yr el i ed on the I J ’ s s t at ement , m ade i n a s ect i on of the I J ’ s d e c i s i o n d i s c u s s i n g Ka ma r a ’ s wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l c l a i m, that“i tcannotbe found t o be more l i kel ythan notthat[K amar a] w o u ld f in d h im se lf

in th e R U F ’s h a n d s. . . .” J .A . at 3 4 . D e sp ite the fa ctthata cl ai m forr el i ef unde rthe C A T and a pe t i t i on for w i thhol di ng of r emoval r equi r e di ffe r entel ement s of pr oof, theIn d e e d , in a se c tio n o f th e IJ’ s o p in io n d e v o ted so lelyto 6 a d isc u ss io n o f K a m a ra ’s C A T p e tit io n , the IJ s tate d th a t “it is im p o ssible to sp ec u lat e w ith an y ac cu rac y the likeliho o d o f R U F ’s g a in in g c o n tro l o f

e n o u g h o f

S ier ra L e o n e to m a k e [ K a m a ra ] f a ll i nt o i t s hands
. . . . ” J
. A
. at28. Kama r a ’ s r e l i a n c e o n Zu b e d a v . As h c r o f t , 3 3 3 F. 3d 463 7 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , i s m i s pl ace d. I n Z ubeda, w e vac at ed and r emanded the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng pet i t i oner r el i ef under the C A T , not i ng thatthe B I A ’ s “r ath er terse” deci s i on pr ovi ded onl ya “mi ni m al anal y s i s ” of pe t i t i oner ’ s cl ai m . I d. at475- 79. Z u beda, how ever inv o lved a d ir ec t p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , w h ere w e e x am ined the B IA ’s d e c i s i o n u n d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a nd a r d
. I d
. a t4 7 1
. By contr as t , o u r revi ew i s m uch narr ow eri n the pr es entcas e. See R E A L I
. D
. A ct § 106( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i )
. Fur therm or e, al though not i ng 14 chanc e of f

al l i ng i nt o t he R U F’ s hands i s the s ame r egar dl es s of w hi ch cl ai m the B I A i s eval uat i ng. 6 W e al s o fi nd thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on s at i s fi es the re q u ire m e n ts o f

th e A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t. A s s tate d in SE C v. C heneryC orp. , 332 U
. S. 194, 196 ( 1947) , an age ncy n e e d o n lyse t f

o rth th e b a sis o f

its a d m in istra tiv e a c tio n “ w ith s uch cl ar i tyas t o be under s t andabl e”; i tneed notpr ovi de a detai l ed st at em ent of i t s r easoning an d co nclusi on s. S ee al so A g u irre -A g u irre , 5 2 6 U .S . at 4 3 1 -3 2 ; S . T re n to n R e sid e n ts A g ains t 20 v . F ed
. H igh w ayA d m in., 1 7 6 F
. 3 d 6 5 8 , 6 6 6 (3d C ir
. 19 99 ) ( st at i ng that courtm ayup ho l d ag ency ’s “‘deci si on of les s than i deal cl ar i tyi f the age ncy ’ s path m ayr eas onabl ybe dis cerned’”) (quoti ng B ow m an T ransp. , Inc. v. A rkansas- B est Fr ei ghtSy s . , I nc. , 419 U
. S. 281, 286 ( 1974) )
. T hus , w her eas the B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t he pr es entcas e maynotbe a model of expos i t i on, i ts uffi ci ent l ys et s for th the B I A ’ s r eas oni ng i n a m a n n e r th a t p e rm its a re v iew in g c o u rt to d isc e rn th e “ b a sis o f its d ec isi o n . ” D o m ing u ez v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 6 F
. 3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 0 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). W e ther efor e conc l ude thatbeca us e the r equi r ement s of bo th A bd ulai and C hen eryare s at i sfi ed, K am ara’ s due p rocess c laim m u st f

a il. 7the t er s enes s of the B IA ’s opi ni on, w e w er e pr i m ar i l yconce rned that the B IA h a d al l ow ed “the t ai nt of the [IJ’ s] earl i er adverse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n ” re g a rd in g Z u b e d a ’s a sy lu m c la im to “bl eed thr ough t o the B I A ’ s cons i der at i on of her [C A T ] cl ai m . ” I d. at476. N o s uch conc ern i s i m pl i cat ed her e. 15 B
. T h e B IA ’s A p p li ca ti o n o f th e C A T S tand ard “A n appl i cantforr el i ef on the mer i t s under[A r t i cl e 3] of th e [ C A T ] b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g ‘th a t itis m o re lik e ly than notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o the pr opos ed countr yof r emoval
. ’ ” Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 -75 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o ti n g 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 6 (c)(2)). T he s t andar d forr el i ef unde rthe C A T “has no s ubj ect i ve component , buti ns t ead r equi r es the al i en t o es t abl i s h, by obj ect i ve evi dence , thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” I d. at175 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o C adetv. B u lg e r, 3 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); E lien v . A sh c ro f t, 3 6 4 F
. 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 8 (1st C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). W e h a v e sta ted th a t: Fo ra n a c tt o c o n s t i tu t e t o r tu r e u n d e rth e [ CA T] and the i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons , i tm us tbe: ( 1) an ac tcaus i ng s ever e phy s i cal orm ent al pai n or s uffe r i ng; ( 2) i nt ent i onal l yi nfl i ct ed; ( 3) foran i l l i ci torpr os cr i bed purpos e; ( 4) byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i th the cons entoracqui es cenc e of a publ i c off

i ci al w ho has cus t odyorphy s i cal contr ol of the vi ct i m ; and ( 5) notar i s i ng fr om l aw ful s ancti on s. A ug ust e v. R i dg e, 39 5 F
. 3d 12 3, 15 1 (3d C i r. 20 05 ); see al so M att erof J

- E
- , 23 I
. & N
. D ec. 291, 297 ( B I A 2002) ( ci t i ng 8 C. F
. R. § 2 0 8
. 1 8 ( a ) ) ; Ca d e t , 3 7 7 F
. 3 d a t1 1 9 2 ( o u t l i n i n g s a me req u ir em en ts) ; E li en , 3 6 4 F
. 3 d at 39 8 (sam e). A n “a li en ’s t es t i m ony , i f cr edi bl e, m aybe s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n the bur den of pr oof w i thoutcorr obor at i on. ” Zubeda, 333 F. 3d at471 ( ci t i ng M ans ourv. I N S, 230 F. 3d 902, 907 ( 7th C i r . 2000) )
. “I f an a l i en8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(3 ) p ro v id e s th a t: 8 I n as s es s i ng w hether i t i s m or e l i kel ythan notthatan ap p li ca n t w o u ld b e tortu red in the p rop o sed co u n try of r emoval , al l evi dence r el evantt o the pos s i bi l i tyof futur e t or tur e s hal l be cons i der ed, i ncl udi ng, butnot l i m i t ed t o: (i) E v id e n c e o f

p a st to rt ure in f licte dup o nth e ap p lica n t; ( i i ) E vi d ence thatthe appl i cantcoul d r el ocat e t o a partof the countryof r emoval w her e he or s he i s not l i kel yt o be t or tur ed; ( i i i ) E vi dence of gr os s , fl agr ant orm as s vi ol at i ons of h u m an ri g h ts w ith in the co u n tryo f re m o v al, w h ere appl i cabl e; and ( i v) O therr el evanti nform at i on r egar di ng condi t i ons in th e c o u n tryo f

re m o v a l. 16 m eet s hi s /herbur den of pr oof, w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe [C A T ] i s m andat oryj us tas i ti s forw i thhol di ng of deport at i on u n d e r§ 2 4 3 ( h )
. ” I d
. a t4 7 2 ( c i t i n g I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) a n d 8 C. F
. R. § § 2 0 8
. 1 6 -20 8
. 1 8 ). 8 T h e B IA s ta te d th e p ro p e r l e g a l s ta n d a rd in its o p in io n . J
. A
. at37 ( “[T] o demonstr at e el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef pur s uantt o the [C A T ] , an al i en mustpr ove thathe ors he more l i kel ythan not fac es t or tur e. ”)
. W e t ake i s s ue, how everw i th i t s appl i cat i on of the above s t andar d t o t he undi s put ed fa ct s of the ca s e. U n d e r th e B IA ’s a p p lica tio n o f th e C A T re g u latio n s, to qual i fyforr el i ef, K amar a w as r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h ei ther : ( 1) thatther e w as a gr eat erthan 50% pr obabi l i tythathe w oul d fac e t or tur e atthe hands of the R U F; or( 2) thatther e w as a gr eat er than 50% pr obabi l i tythathe w oul d fac e t or tur e atthe hands of the Si err a Leone governm ent
. T he B I A s epar at el ycons i der ed the li keli ho od of tor ture byeach e nti ty . U nd er i t s anal y si s, K a m a ra w o u ld b e e n tit led to re lief o n lyif h e w a s a b le to demonstr at e bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatatl eas tone of the ent i t i es , t aken a l one, w oul d t or tur e hi m i f he w er e r eturned t o Si err a Leone.8 C .F .R . 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(3 )(ii) p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt th a t: 9 I n as s es s i ng w hether i t i s m or e l i kel y than notthatan ap p li ca n t w o u ld b e tortu red in the p rop o sed co u n try of r emoval , al l evi dence r el evantt o the pos s i bi l i tyof t or tur e s hal l be cons i der ed, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed to : . . .(ii ) E v id e n c e th a t th e a p p lica n t co u ld re lo c a te to a p a rt o f th e c o u n try o f re m o v a l w h e re h e o r sh e is n o t lik e ly to b e to rt u re d .” 17 A p ro p e r a p p lica tio n o f th e re g u latio n s, h o w e v e r, m e re ly r equi r es K amar a t o es t abl i s h thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat h e f ac es to rtu re b y“a p u b li c o ff ici al (go v ern m en t) ” in S ierra L eone; i
. e. , bythe R U F orthe Si err a Leone governm ent , w hen the tw o en t i t i es ar e con si dered t og et her. In ot her w ords, 9 K a m a ra is e n tit led to C A T p ro tec tio n if h e is a b le to d e m o n stra te thatthe cumul at i ve pr obabi l i tyof t or tur e bythe tw o ent i t i es e x c e e d s 5 0 %. T hus , fori l l us tr at i ve purpos es onl y , l etus as s um e thatthe p rob ab il ityo f K am ara b eing return ed to R U F co n tr o ll ed terri tory i s 30% , and thatthe pr obabi l i tyof K amar a s uffe r i ng t ortur e at th e h a n d s o f

th e R U F , if re tu rn e d to R U F c o n tro lled ter rito ry , is 90%
. A s s um e furtherthatthe pr obabi l i tyof K amar a bei ng r eturned t o t err i t orycontr ol l ed bythe Si err a Leone governm ent is 70 % an d the p rob ab il ityo f to rtu re if return ed to su ch terri tory i s 40%
. T he pr obabi l i tythatK amar a w i l l be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e, i f r eturned t o Si err a Leone, i s the s um of the w ei ght ed probab i l i tyof tor ture i n each of the tw o terri t ori es; i n thi s case 5 5 % (3 0 % m u ltip lie d b y9 0 % + 7 0 % m u ltip lie d b y4 0 % = 5 5 % ). S ee R o g er A
. C arlson , S tat ist ics 1 2 (H o lden -D ay , Inc
. 1 9 7 3 ) (“If A and B ar e mut ual l yexcl us i ve [e vent s ] , then the pr obabi l i tyof A un i on B [i
. e. , the ev ent w hich occu rs w hen ever A or B occu rs ] m u st b e th e su m o f

th e p ro b a b ili ties o f

A a n d B .”). T h u s, d e sp ite th e f a c t th a t K a m a ra c a n n o t d e m o n stra te th a t itis m o re lik e ly than notthathe w i l l be t or tur ed bythe R U F ( 30% m ul t i pl i ed by 90% = 27% ) , orbythe Si err a Leone governm ent( 70% m ul t i pl i ed by40% = 28% ) w hen ea ch ent i tyi s cons i der ed ind ep en d en tl y , u n d er the circu m stan ce s ass u m ed ab o v e, K am araT h e a b o v e a n aly sis, o f c o u rse, assu m e s th at K am ara 10 fal l i ng i nt o t he hands of the R U F, an d K amar a fa l l i ng i nt o the hands of the Si err a Leone governm entare m u tua l l yexcl us i ve event s . T heym aynotbe. T her e does exi s ta pr ob abi l i tygr eat er th a n z e ro (h o w e v e r sligh t) th a t K a m a ra c o u ld f in d h im s e lf

in t err i t orycontr ol l ed byone ent i tyand then, ata l at er ti m e, fi nd h im self in a terri toryco n tr o ll ed b ythe o ther. A ss u m e th a t K a m a ra h a s a 2 0 % p ro b a b ili tyo f f a lli n g in to R U F ha nds al one and a 90% pr obabi l i tyof t or tur e i f s uch an e vent occur s . A s s um e furtherm or e thatK amar a has a 70% ch ance of fal l i ng i nt o the hands of the S i err a L eone G overnm ental one, and a 4 0 % c h a n c e o f

t o r tu r e i f

s u c h a n e v e n to c c u r s . Fi na l l ya s s u me thatther e i s a 10% pr obabi l i tythatK amar a w i l l fal l i nt o the hands of both the R U F and the Si err a Leone G overnm ent
. T he cha nce of t o r tu r e b ye i th e r , o rb o th , e n t i t i e s i f s u c h a n e v e n t o c c u r s i s ( 1 0 0 % - ( the pr obabi l i ty that he w i l l not be t or tur ed by ei ther en ti ty )), or (1 0 0 % - ( 1 0 % * 6 0 % )) = 9 4 %
. T hus the over al l pr obabi l i ty of t ortur e i f K amar a i s r eturned to S ierra L e o n e is eq u al t o (th e w eigh ted p rob ab il ityo f K am ara b e i n g t o r tu r e d b y t h e RU F , i f h e f i n d s h i ms e l f

o n l yi n RU F t err i t or i es ) + ( the w ei ght ed proba bi l i ty of K amar a bei ng t or tur ed by th e S ier ra L e o n e G o v e rn m e n t, if h e f in d s h im se lf

o n lyin G overnm entcontr o ll ed t err i t or i es ) + (the w ei ght ed pr obabi l i tyof K am ara b eing tortu red b yeith er, or b o th, th e R U F a n d the S ierra L eone G overnm ent if K am ar a fi nds hi m s el f i n both R U F and G o v e rn m e n t terr ito rie s). A p p ly in g o u r h yp o th e tica l to th is equat i on, y i el ds an over al l pr obabi l i ty of t or tur e of ( 20% * 90% ) + ( 7 0 % * 4 0 %) + ( 1 0 % * 9 4 %) = 5 5
. 4 %. 18 m aybe abl e t o demonstr at e thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w i l l be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o Si err a Leone w hen the tw o ent i t i es are co n side red tog ethe r. 10 T h e B IA ’s e rro n e o u s a p p lica tio n o f th e re g u latio n s is e v id e n t in its o p in io n . T h e B IA f irst c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se “ ‘it c a n n o t b e f

o u n d
. . . m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t [ K a m a ra ] w o u ld fin d h im self in th e R U F ’s ha n d s, ’” J.A
. at 37 (qu o ti n g IJ opi ni on) , K amar a fa i l ed t o demonstr at e bya pr eponder ance of the e v iden ce that h e w il l be to rtu red b yreb el fo rce s. T h e B o ard19 p ro c e e d e d a s if

th is a sp e c t o f

th e c a se w a s n o lo n g e r p e rtin e n t, s t a t i n g th a t“ [ t ] h e r e f

o r e , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s wh e th e rth e RU F cons t i tut es a governm entforpurpos es of the [CA T ]
. ” J
. A
. at37; s ee a l s o A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at15 ( “N o m or e nee ded t o be s ai d on th a t f ro n t.”). T h e B o a rd th e n re a so n e d th a t K a m a ra f a iled to demonstr at e bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thathe w i l l be t or tur ed bythe Si err a Leone governm ent
. B eca us e the l i kel i hood of t or tur e bythe R U F i s l es s than 50% and the l i kel i hood of t or tur e bythe Si err a Leone governm enti s l es s than 50% , the B I A concl uded thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on m us tbe r ever s ed. Pr oper l yappl y i ng the C A T r egul at i ons t o the s t i pul at ed fac t s of thi s cas e, K amar a mayi ndeed be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r th e C A T . T h e IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t alth o u g h “ it i s im p o ss ib le to s pecul at e w i th anyacc ur acythe l i kel i hood” of K amar a fa l l i ng in to R U F h a n d s, if

su c h a n e v e n t sh o u ld h a p p e n , “to rtu re is a ll butcert ai n. ” J A
. at28. H e furtherconcl uded thatthe cha nces of K am ara fa ll ing into the g o v ern m en t han d s “is m u ch g rea ter” th a n h is c h a n c e s o f

f a lli n g in to R U F h a n d s, a n d w h ile “ [ c ]le a rly notas brut al as the r ebel s , the governm entof Si err a Leone no nethel ess poses a si gn i fi cant r i sk of torture for i t s ci t i zens, dependi ng on w ho theym aybe. ” J
. A
. at29. T hus , al though any ap p li ca ti o n o f th e re g u lat ion s m u st ne ce ssaril yb e m o re q u ali tat ive th an q u an ti tat ive, see , e.g., M att er o f A co sta, 1 9 I & N D ec . 2 1 1 , 2 2 9 (B IA 1 9 8 5 ), w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA i m pr oper l yappl i ed the C A T s t andar ds t o K amar a’ s pet i t i on for r el i ef. A s s t at ed bythe I J , “the verydi ffi cul tyof pr oof i s fur ther r efl ect i on of the i ns t abi l i tyof the country , w hi ch r ai s es , r ather than r educe s , the l i kel i hood of t or tur e. ” J
. A
. at30. O urabove a nal y s i s , how ever , r es t s on the as s um pt i on that th e IJ w a s c o rre c t in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e R U F w a s a “ p u b lic o f f i c i a l ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

8 C. F
. R. § 2 0 8
. 1 8 ( a )
. Ne i th e rth e CA T regul at i on s, 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 08
. 18 , no r the C on ven t i on A gainst T o rtu re, A rtI (w h ich § 2 0 8
. 1 8 inco rpo rates), d ef ines the term “publ i c off

i ci al
. ” A s s t at ed i n the I J ’ s J ul y12, 2001 w r i t t en deci s i on, the U ni t ed N at i ons C om m i t t ee A gai ns tT or tur e, w hi ch hear s and adj udi cat es cert ai n i ndi vi dual cl ai m s ar i s i ng under A rt icl e 3 o f th e C A T , h as h eld th at th e re b el gro u p S en d ero L u m in o so [ S h in in g P a th ] o f P e ru w a s n o t a “ p u b lic o f f icia l”T he i nt erveni ng pas s age of the R E A L I D A ctr el i eves us 11 o f re so lv in g th e u n se ttl e d iss u e o f w h e th e r re m a n d is a p p ro p ria te w h e n g ra n tin g a n a lie n ’s h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . I n contr as tt o the pr e- I I R I R A s t atut oryr egi m e ( al l ow i ng for d ire c t re v iew o f

a f in a l o rd e r o f d e p o rta tio n a g a in st a n a lien w h o is r emovabl e byr eas on of comm i t t i ng a cr i m ina l offe ns e) , w hi ch b esto w ed u p o n the c o u rt s “th e b roa d au tho ri tyto g ran t dec laratory an d injun cti v e re li ef

, ” IN S v . S t. C y r, 5 3 3 U
. S
. 2 8 9 , 3 0 9 (20 0 1 ), underthe pos t - I I R I R A ( butpr e-R E A L I D ) s cheme forcr i m i nal al i ens , “the l i m i t ed r ol e pl ay ed bythe [ha beas ] co u rt s ” i s “fa r n arro w er tha n the ju d ici al rev iew au tho ri ze d b y[th e o ld statutory s tructur e]
. ” I d. at312. T h e w rit o f h a b e a s co rp u s “p e rf o rm s a p re c ise a n d sp e c if ic funct i on: i tfor ces the governm entt o j us t i fya dec i s i on t o hol d an i ndi vi dual i n cus t ody
. ” Zal aw adi a v. A s hcr oft , 371 F. 3d 292, 299 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ; s e e a l s o Za d v y d a s v . Dav i s , 5 3 3 U. S. 678, 699 ( 2001) ( s t at i ng that“the hi s t or i c purpos e of the w r i t[i s ] t o r el i eve det ent i on byexec ut i ve author i t i es w i thoutj udi ci al tr i al
. . . ”) (i nternal ci t at i on and qu otat i on s om i t t ed); H el fi n v . U nit ed S t at es, 3 5 8 U
. S
. 4 1 5 , 4 2 1 (19 5 9 ) (S tew art, J. , co n cu rri n g ) (“ T h e v ery off ice of the G r eatW r i t , i t s onl yfunct i on, i s t o i nqui r e i nt o the l egal i tyof the det ent i on of one i n cus t ody
. ”)
. T hi s s i ngul arfocus 20 beca us e i tw as nei therthe governm ent , nordi d i tactw i th the g o v ern m en t’ s ac q u iesce n ce . J. A
. at 25 (cit ing M att er o f S -V -, Int. D ec . # 3 4 3 0 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ), sli p o p . at 8-9 ). S im il arlythe B IA has hel d, as of M ay2000, thatguer i l l as i n C ol om bi a w er e not sh o w n to a c t as , o r w ith th e a c q u ies c e n c e o f , “p u b lic o f

f icia ls” in thatcountr y . I d. A s not ed above , beca us e of i t s err oneous appl i cat i on of the C A T r egul at i ons , the B I A decl i ned t o addr es s w hetherthe R U F c o n s titu te s a “ p u b lic o f f ic ia l” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

8 C .F .R . § 208. 18. O n r emand, the B I A i s i ns truct ed t o det erm i ne thati s s ue f irst. If it d e ter m in e s th a t th e R U F sh o u ld b e d e e m e d a “ p u b lic o f f icia l,” th e B IA sh o u ld th e n a p p lyth e p ro p e r C A T a n a ly sis e x p la in e d a b o v e to th e u n d is p u te d f a c ts o f th e c a s e . S e e IN S v .

11on the l egal i tyof det ent i on notonl ycons tr ai ns the s cope of a habea s court ’ s r evi ew , butal s o the natur e of r el i ef thata habe as courtm aypr ovi de. A s stated in A ll en v . M cC u rry , 4 4 9 U
. S
. 9 0 , 9 8 n . 1 2 (19 8 0 ), a case no ti nv olvi ng an al i en hab eas p et i t i on , the “u nique pu rpose of habe as corpu s” i s “t o r el eas e the appl i cantforthe w r i tfr om unl aw ful confi nement
. ” Thus, a ha b ea s cour tm ayl ack the author i tyt o r emand a cas e t o the B I A for fur therpr ocee di ngs . C f. H err era v . C ol l i ns , 506 U
. S. 390, 403 ( 1993) ( “The t ypi cal r el i ef gr a nt e d i n f

e de r a l ha be a s c orpu s i s a c on di t i on a l or de rof r e l ease u n le s s th e S ta te e le c ts to re tr yth e s u c c e s s f u l h a b e a s p e titio n e r. . .

. ”)
. A tl eas tone courtof appe al s thathas exa m i ned the i s s ue has found thatr emand i s notappr opr i at e. See Zal aw adi a, 371 F. 3d at 298. W er e w e s t i l l fac ed w i th the D H S ’ a p p eal of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on gr ant i ng K amar a’ s habea s pet i t i on, w e mayhave s i m pl y v ac ated the or derof r emoval w i thoutr emand. G i ven our conver s i on of the pr es enthabea s cas e i nt o a pet i t i on fordi r ect r evi ew , how ever , r emand i s now appr opr i at e. W e em p has i ze, once a gai n, thatourabove 12 char act er i zat i on of the l i kel i hood of t ort u re usi ng num er i cal h yp o theticals i s fo r il lustrat ive pu rpo ses on ly
. O n rem an d , the B IA sh o u ld a p p lyth e o v e ra rc h in g p rin c ip les (w h ich w e h a v e c h o se n to d e m o n s tr a te q u a n tita tiv e ly), in a q u a lita tiv e m a n n e r.
21 V en tura, 53 7 U
. S
. 1 2 (20 0 2 ) (pe r cu ri am ). 12 C
. T he St at e- C r eat ed D angerE xcept i on K amar a ar gues thati n addi t i on t o m i s appl y i ng the pr oper l egal s t andar d t o hi s C A T pet i t i on the B I A , i n i s s ui ng i t s fi nal order of rem ov al , viol at ed h i s r i gh tt o sub st anti ve d ue p rocess u n d e r t h e s ta te -c re a te d d a n g e r e x c e p tio n . T he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment appl i es t o al l “‘ per s ons ’ w i thi n the U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng22 a lien s, w h e th e r th e ir p re se n c e h e re is la w f u l, un law f

u l, t empora r y , orperm anent
. ” Zadvy das v. D avi s , 533 U
. S. 678, 6 9 3 (20 0 1 ); see also P ly ler v. D o e, 45 7 U
. S
. 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 (19 8 2 ); M at hew s v. D i az, 42 6 U
. S
. 67 , 77 (1976 ). In m ost ci r cumst ance s , the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i m pos es no obl i gat i on on a sta te to p ro tec t an in d iv id u a l f ro m h a rm in f

licte d b yp riv a te part i es . N onethel es s , w e have r ecogni zed a “s t at e- cr eat ed dangerexce pt i on, ” s uch thatthe governm enthas a cons t i tut i onal d u tyto p ro tec t a p e rso n a g a in st in ju rie s in f licte d b ya th ird -p a rty w hen i taff

i r m at i vel ypl ace s the per s on i n a pos i t i on of dange r the per s on w oul d nototherw i s e have fac ed. C as es pr edi cat i ng cons t i tut i onal l i abi l i tyon a s t at e- cr eat ed dange rtheoryhave f our com m on el em ents : ( 1) the harm ul t i m at el ycaus ed w as for es eea bl e and fai r l ydi r ect ; ( 2) the s t at e ac t oract ed i n w i l l ful d isr eg ard fo r th e sa fe tyo f th e p lai n ti ff; ( 3 ) th ere exi s t ed s om e r el at i ons hi p betw een the s t at e and the p lain tiff; (4 ) th e sta te a c to rs u se d th e ir a u th o rityto cr eat e an opportuni tythatotherw i s e w oul d not h av e e x ist ed fo r th e third p arty ’s crim e to o cc u r. K nei pp v. T edder , 95 F. 3d 1199, 1208 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). F u rth erm o re, “th e c ase s w h ere the s t at e- cr eat ed dange rtheoryw as appl i ed w er e bas ed on d isc re te, g ro ss lyre c k les s a c ts c o m m itt e d b yth e sta te o r sta te act or s us i ng thei rpecul i arpos i t i ons as s t at e ac t or s , l eavi ng a di s cr et e pl ai nt i ff vul ner abl e t o for es eea bl e i nj ury . ” I d. ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). W e, as w el l as otherappel l at e court s , have he l d thatthe s t at e- cr eat ed dange rtheoryi s a vi abl e mechani s m for e s ta b lis h in g a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3
. See K nei pp, 95 F. 3d at1208; s ee a l s o U hl r i g v. H ar der , 64 F. 3d 567, 572 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ; R eed v. G ar dner , 986 F. 2d 1122, 1125 ( 7th C i r . 1993) ; D w ar es v. C i tyof N ew Y or k, 985 F. 2d 94, 9 9 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); F re e m a n v . F e rg u so n , 9 1 1 F .2 d 5 2 , 5 5 (8 th C i r . 1990)
. W e ar e aw ar e of no c our tof appe al s w hi ch has r ecogni zed the cons t i tut i onal val i di tyof the s t at e- cr eat ed dange r theoryi n t he cont extof an i m m i gr at i on cas e. B uts ee Bui l es v.23 N y e , 2 3 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 1 8 (M .D . P a . 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t d e sp ite p e t i t i o n e r ’ s i n a b i l i tyt o e s t a b l i s h h a b e a s r e l i e f u n d e rCA T – beca us e evi dence di d nots uppor tfi ndi ng thatC ol om bi an g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld a c q u ies c e to to rtu re b yd ru g c a rte l – pet i t i onerw as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde rs t at e- cr eat ed dange r exce pt i on)
. W e dec l i ne t o do s o her e, and hol d thatthe s t at ecr eat ed dange rexce pt i on has no pl ace i n ouri m m i gr at i on j ur i s prudence
. T he Supr eme C our thas r epea t edl ym ade c l earthat“‘ over n o co n ce ivab le su b

ject i s the legislat ive p o w er o f C o n g ress m o re c o m p lete th a n it i s o v e r’ th e a d m iss io n o f a lien s.” F iallo v . B e ll, 430 U
. S. 787, 792 ( 1977) ( quot i ng O cea ni c St eam N avi gat i on C o. v. S tranahan , 21 4 U
. S
. 32 0, 33 9 (190 9)) ; accord K l ei nd i enst v. M andel , 408 U
. S. 753, 766 ( 1972)
. “O urcas es ‘ have l ong r ecogni zed the pow ert o expel orexcl ude al i ens as a funda m ent al s over ei gn attr i but e exe r ci s ed bythe G overnm ent ' s pol i t i cal depart m ent s l ar gel yi m m une fr om j udi ci al contr ol
. ’ ” Fi al l o, 430 U
. S. at792 ( quot i ng Shaughnes s yv. U ni t ed St at es ex r el
. M eze , 34 5 U
. S
. 20 6, 21 0 (195 3))
. T he C ou rtst at ed in G al van v. P res s, 3 4 7 U .S . 5 2 2 (1 9 5 4 ), th a t: P o licie s p e rta in in g to th e e n tryo f a lien s a n d th e ir rig h t to re m a in h e re a re p e c u liarlyc o n c e rn e d w ith the pol i t i cal conductof governm ent
. I n the enfor cementof thes e pol i ci es , the Execut i ve B r anch of

the G overnm entm us tr es pectthe pr ocedur al s afe guar ds of due pr oces s . . . . B utthat the form ul at i on of thes e pol i ci es i s entrus t ed excl us i vel yt o C ongr es s has become aboutas fi r m l yi m bedded i n the l egi s l at i ve and j udi ci al t i s s ues of ourbodypol i t i c as anyas pectof our governm ent
. . . . W e ar e notpr epar ed t o deem o u rse lv e s w ise r o r m o re se n sitiv e to h u m a n rig h ts than ourpr edec es s or s , es peci al l ythos e w ho have been mostzea l ous i n pr ot ect i ng ci vi l l i bert i es underthe C ons t i tut i on, and mustther efor e under ourcons t i tut i onal s y s t em re cogni ze c ongr es s i onal p o w e r i n d e a lin g w ith a lie n s . . . .24 I d. at531- 32. T o th a t en d , the C o u rt h a s a p p lied a v e rylen ien t “f a c ially l egi t i m at e and bona fi de r eas on s t andar d” t o cons t i tut i onal chal l enges of i m m i gr at i on s t atut es . See, e. g. , Fi al l o, 430 U
. S. at 795 ( hol di ng thati m m i gr at i on s t atut e thatdi s t i ngui s hed betw een “l egi t i m at e” a nd “i l l egi t i m at e” c hi l dr en of U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens i n gi vi ng pr efe r ence fori m m i gr at i on s t atus t o al i ens m etequal pr ot ect i on s t andar ds beca us e di s t i nct i ons i n s t atut e w er e bas ed on “fa ci al l yl egi t i m at e and bona fi de r eas on”) ; K l ei ndi ens t , 408 U
. S. at769 ( hol di ng thatr egul at i on deny i ng appl i cantvi s a for c o m m u n ist b e lief

s p a ss e s F irst A m e n d m e n t “f a c iallyleg iti m a te an d b o n a f

ide re aso n ” sc ruti n y ). E xt endi ng the s t at e- cr eat ed dange rexce pt i on t o fi nal orders of rem ov al w ou l d im perm i ssi blytread up on the C on gress ’ v irtu a llye x c lu siv e d o m a in o v e r im m ig ra tio n , an d w o u ld u n d u ly exp and the co ntours of o ur i m m i grat i on st atutes and regul at i on s, i ncl udi ng the r egul at i ons i m pl ement i ng the C A T
. D es pi t e the fac tthatC ongr es s coul d r eas onabl ychoos e t o amend t he i m m i gr at i on s t atut es t o i ncorpor at e novel devel opm ent s i n our cas e l aw , “thes e ar e pol i cyques t i ons entrus t ed exc l us i vel yt o the pol i t i cal br anche s of ourG overnm ent , and w e have no j udi ci al author i tyt o s ubs t i tut e ourpol i t i cal j udgm entforthatof the C ongr es s . ” Fi al l o, 430 U
. S. at798. D
. R emai ni ng I s s ues 1. N ew C ountr yC ondi t i ons A c c o rd in g to th e 2 0 0 4 S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rts o n H u m an R igh ts Pra cti ce s, the c ivil w ar b etw ee n the S ierra L e o n e g o v e r n me n ta n d th e RU F o f f i c i a l l ye n d e d i n 2 0 0 2
. At p r e s e n t , th e g o v e r n m e n t , w h i c h h a s f u l l c o n tr o l o f

th e c o u n try, “gene r al l yr es pect [s ] the human r i ght s of i t s ci t i zens . . . . ” C ount r yR eport , at1, avai l abl e at w w w . s t at e. gov/ g/ dr l /r l s /hrrpt/ 2004/ 41625. ht m . T he mostr ece nt C ount r yR eportfur thernot es thatthe Si err a Leone C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s t or tur e and othercruel , i nhum an, ordegr adi ng tr ea tm en t or p u n ishm en t, an d stat es th at ov er the p ast y ea r th ere25 have be en r el at i vel yfew r eport s of s uch i nci dent s . I d. at2. T he i s s ue thus becomes w hetherw e ca n t ake not i ce of thes e new countr ycondi t i ons and fa ct orthem i nt o ouranal y s i s of w hether t o g r a n tKa ma r a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, o rr a th e r , wh e th e rwe m us tr es tourdeci s i on on countryr eport s i ncl uded i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d w hi ch, bynow , ar e nea r l ys i x y ear s ol d. I n Be r i s h a

j v . As h c r o f

t , 3 7 8 F
. 3 d 3 1 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , we d ire c tlya d d re ss e d th is iss u e , an d h e ld th a t w h ile th e u se o f sta le countr yr eport s i s part i cul ar l ypr obl emat i c and mayl ead s om et i m es t o abs ur d orunj us tr es ul t s , “court s r evi ew i ng the det erm i nat i on of an a dm i ni s tr at i ve age ncym us tappr ove orr ej ect th e a g e n c y’ s a c t i o n p u r e l y o n th e b a s i s o f th e r e a s o n s o f

f e r e d b y, and the r ecor d compi l ed bef or e, the age ncyi t s el f. ” I d. at330 (ci t i ng S E C v. C hen eryC orp. , 31 8 U
. S
. 80 (1943 )) ; see al so G a m b a s h id z e v . A s h c ro f t, 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 3 -9 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e furthernot ed thatw hi l e otherci r cui t s do t ake j udi ci al not i ce of new countr ydevel opm ent s notr efl ect ed i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, s ee, e. g. , Pel i nkovi c v. A s hcr oft , 366 F. 3d 532, 540- 41 ( 7th C i r . 2004) ( t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce thatcountrycondi t i ons for ethni c A l bani ans i n Serbi a and M ont enegr o i n 2004 ar e much i m pr oved overcondi t i ons i n the ea r l y1990s ) , s uch an a ppr oach “notonl ycarr i es w i th i tthe pot ent i al forw hol es al e r el i t i gat i on of m a n yim m ig ra tio n -la w c laim s, b u t th e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls a re ill

equi pped t o r ece i ve s uppl ement aryevi dence
. ” B er i s haj , 378 F. 3d at330. R es pondi ng t o ourconce rn expr es s ed i n B er i s haj , the A t t orneyG ener al i m pl ement ed a ne w pol i cy , w her ebythe O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on ( “O I L ”) s cr eens and r emands pe t i t i ons fordi r ectr evi ew “w her e r ecor ds ar e outof dat e and not a p p ro p ria te f

o r ju d icia l re v iew .” A m b a rtso u m ian v . A sh c ro f t, 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 5 , 8 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e f a c to rs th e O IL u se s in as s es s i ng the nee d forr emand i ncl ude: “( 1) w hetherther e have been pe r t i nent , i nt erveni ng event s i n the countryof r emoval ; and ( 2) w hetherthe i s s ues on r evi ew ar e ‘ t i m e s ens i t i ve’ i n that change s i n condi t i ons overt i m e mayaff ectthe r es ol ut i on of the i s s ues . ” I d. D H S sta tes th a t “[ t]h is c a se h a s b e e n sc re e n e d p u rsu a n t to8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 7 (a ) p ro v id e s th a t: 13 A n ali en w ho: has been or der ed r emoved; has been f o u n d u n d e r § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(3 ) to b e e n tit le d to pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e; and i s s ubj ect t o the pr ovi s i ons form andat orydeni al of w i thhol di ng of r emoval under§ 208. 16( d) ( 2) or 26 th is p o lic y ,” a n d it h a s d e e m e d re m a n d in a p p ro p ri a te
. A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at9. T he governm ent , aft erobt ai ni ng a favor abl e hol di ng fr om the B I A , had l i t t l e i ncent i ve t o pur s ue re m a n d o f

th e p re se n t ca se to th e B IA , ev e n if re m a n d w o u ld have i ntr oduced e vi dence m or e fa vor abl e t o i t s cas e. K amar a, m eanw hi l e, had no i ncent i ve t o fi l e a mot i on t o r eopen, s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) , 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2, beca us e the updat ed c o u n tr yr e p o r t s , i f

a c c e p t e d , wo u l d a l l b u te v i s c e r a t e a n ya s y l u m, w i thhol di ng, orC A T cl ai m thathe as s ert ed. T hus , des pi t e the n ew p o li cyim p lem en ted b ythe A tt o rne yG en era l, w e a g ain a re f a c e d w ith a n a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd w h ich a p p e a rs w o e f u llyo u tdat ed. W e t ake thi s oppor tuni tyt o r emi nd the A t t orneyG ener al th a t th e in ter n a l re m a n d p ro c e d u re o u tli n e d in A m b a rtso u m ian is appr opr i at e notonl yforcas es w her e countrycondi t i ons have det er i or at ed i n t he ar ea of the w or l d w her e pet i t i oners eeks r evi ew , butal s o w her e condi t i ons have s o i m pr oved that w i thhol di ng of r emoval orr el i ef unde rthe C A T cannotbe j us t i fi ed. T he C our tof A ppeal s s houl d be guar ded fr om adj udi cat i ng cas es w her e the under l y i ng i s s ues have l ar gel ybeen m oo t ed b ychan ges i n co un trycon dit i on s. 2. T he Scope of

the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s I nj unct i on I n l i ghtof the uni que pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e, wh e r e th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s o p i n i o n b e l o w h a s b e e n v a c a t e d , we ar e notobl i ged t o addr es s the C our t ’ s i s s uance of a pe r m anent i nj unct i on agai ns tr emoval
. N onethel es s , w e not e thats uch i nj unct i ve or der s ar e overbr oad as a mat t erof l aw . T he r egul at i ons governi ng C A T r el i ef make pl ai n thatpr ot ect i on u n d er the C A T m ayb e term inated u p o n ch an g es in co u n try c o n d i t i o n s . S e e 8 C. F
. R. § 2 0 8
. 1 7 ( d )
. T h u s , e v e n i f CA T 13( d) ( 3) , s hal l be gr ant ed def err al of r emoval t o the countr yw her e he or s he i s m or e l i kel y than nott o be t or tur ed. § 2 0 8 .1 7 (d )(1 ) p ro v id e s h o w e v e r th a t: A tanyt i m e w hi l e deferr al of re m oval i s i n eff ect , the IN S D istric t C o u n se l f o r th e D istric t w ith j ur i s di ct i on overan al i en w hos e r emoval h as bee n d e f e rre d u n d e r p a ra g ra p h (a ) o f th is se c tio n m a yf ile a mot i on w i th the I m m i gr ati on C our thavi ng a d m in istra tiv e c o n tro l p u rsu a n t to § 3 .1 1 o f th is chapt ert o s ched u le a hea r i ng t o cons i derw hether defe r r al of r emoval s houl d be t erm i nat ed. A fter ne w evi dence i s pr es ent ed, 8 C
. F. R
. § 208. 17( d) ( 4) e sta b lish e s th a t: If th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e d e ter m in e s tha t th e a lien is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t to b e to rtu re d in th e c o u n tryto w hi ch r emoval has been de ferr ed, the orde rof defe r r al s hal l r emai n i n pl ace . I f the i m m i gr at i on j udg e det erm i nes thatthe al i en has notes t abl i s hed th a t h e o r sh e is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t to b e to rtu re d in the countr yt o w hi ch r emoval has been de ferr ed, the defe r r al of r emoval s hal l be t erm i nat ed and the al i en m a y b e r e m o v e d t o th a tc o u n try. 27 re lief is g ra n ted , the g o v e rn m e n t is a u th o riz e d to f ile a m o tio n to r eopen, bas ed on cha nged countrycondi t i ons , t o t erm i nat e an a lien ’s d e f

e rra l o f re m o v a l. I V. In su m , fo r th e re aso n s g iven ab o v e, w e h o ld tha t th e B IA i m pr oper l yappl i ed the C A T r egul at i ons . W e vac at e the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on, and r emand t o the B I A forfur therpr ocee di ngs c o n s i s t e n twi th o u ro p i n i o n UNI T E D S T AT E S CO UR T OF APPEALS