2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-19-2008 

# P at el v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2119

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P at e l v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1204. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1204The Honor abl e J os e ph H. Rodr i gue z , Se ni or Di s tr i c t Judge for

the Di s tr i c t

of * Ne w J e r s e y , s i tt i ng by

de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 07- 2119

__________ R O M A B H A G U B H A I PA T E L and NI KH I L BA BU BH AI PATEL,

P eti ti o n ers v. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S , R es pondent

__________ O n Pet i t i on for R evi ew of an O r der of t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N os . A 97 439 831/ A 97 438 832 I m m i gr at i on J udge: A nni e S. G ar cy

___________ Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay15, 2008

___________ B efor e: M cK ee a nd G ar t h, C i r cui t J udges , and R O D R I G U E Z , D i s t r i ct J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay19, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________-2-

G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : Ro ma Bh a g u b h a i P a t e l a n d Ni k h i l Ba b h u b h a i P a t e l p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w of

a Board of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s ( “ BI A” ) de c i s i on, whi c h a ffi rm e d an or de r of an I mm i gr at i on Judge ( “ I J ” ) , de nyi ng the i r a ppl i c at i ons for

a s yl um , wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and pr ot e c t i on unde r

the Conve nt i on Aga i ns t

Tort ur e . W e wi l l de ny

the pe t i t i on. I. Rom aBha gubha i Pat e l and Ni khi l Babhubha i Pat e l ar e nat i ve s and c i t i z e ns of In d ia. T h ey

are also hu sb an dan dw if e. M rs. P atel en teredth e U n itedS tates in1 9 9 8 as a n o n imm ig ran t v isito r, au th o rizedto rem ainf o r six m o n th s. S h e rem ain edb eyo n dth is tim e w ith o u t au th o rizatio n . M r. P atel en teredth e U n itedS tates in1 9 9 9 as a n o n imm ig ran t stu d en t. H e f ailedto m ain tainh is stu d en t statu s. I n an att e m

pt t o r e m a i n i n the Uni t e d St at e s , the Pat e l s s ought the a s s i s t anc e of Pravin Pate l ( “Pravin”). Th e Pat el s purchas ed vari ou s docum ents from Pravin, s uch as U n itedS tates p assp o rts, driv ers licen ses, an dso cial secu rity nu m b ers. A ll o f

th ese d o cu m en ts w ere f

rau du len t. Wh enth e P atels attem p tedto u se o n e o f

th e d o cu m en ts to ob ta in a Unite d S tate s pas sport, of fici al s dis covered the do cum ent was no t genuine. Mr. Pat e l the n a dm i tt e d t o the offi c i a l s that he pur c ha s e d the doc um e nt s fr om Pr avi n. Mr . Pat e l be gan c oope r at i ng wi th fe de r a ll aw e nfor c e m e nt offi c i a l s i nve s t i gat i ng P rav in ’s f alse d o cu m en ts rin g . A p p aren tly , P rav inco n tactedM r. P atel an dw arn edh im that on e of h is as soci at es sa id he wo uld “take care of ” Mr. Pate l i f h e dis cl osed-3-

i nform at i on about

the a s s oc i at e t o fe de r a l l aw e nfor c e m e nt offi c i a l s . Addi t i ona l l y , one of Mr. Pat el ’s re lati ves war ned h im that Pravin m ay

se ek re tr ibution f

or Mr. Pat el ’s coop er at ion w it

h the of fici al s. Pravin’s wh er ea

bo uts are curr entl y

un kn ow n. Mr. Pat el beli eves , how ever , that he m ay be li ving in India. The De par

tm e nt of Hom e l and Se c ur i ty

( “ DHS” ) c omm e nc e d r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs agai nst t he Pate ls in 20 05 . The DH S charged that Mrs. Pate l was re m ov able un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(1 )(B ) f o r rem ain in g inth e U n itedS tates b eyo n dth e p erio dau th o rized . T h e D H S f

urth er ch arg edth at M r. P atel w as rem o v ab le un d er 8 U .S .C . § 12 27 (a )( 1)(C)( i) fo r fai li ng to com ply with the c on diti on s of h is adm is si on . After c onc e di ng r e m ovabi l i ty , the Pat e l s a ppl i e d for a s yl um , wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and protec ti on un der the Co nv enti on Ag ai nst Torture . Ess enti al ly , the Pate ls cl ai m they pos s e s s awe l l - founde d fe ar of pe r s e c ut i on i n I ndi aby Pr avi n and hi s a s s oc i at e s for co o p eratin g w ithf

ed eral law en f

o rcem en t o f

f icials. The I Jde ni e d the Pat e l s ’ a ppl i c at i ons and or de r e d the m r e m ove d t o I ndi a . The P atels th enap p ealedto th e B IA , w h ichad o p tedan daf f irm edth e IJ’s d ecisio n . T h is p etitio ntim ely

f o llo w ed . II . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . Be c a u s e t h e BI A a d o p t e d t h e I J ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d a d d e d i t s o wn r e a s o n i n g , we r evi ew bot h t he B I A ’ s and t he I J ’ s deci s i ons . J arbough v. A G of t he U ni t ed St at es , 483-4-

F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e uphol d fac t ual det er m i nat i ons i f s uppor t ed by su b sta n tial e v id e n c e , B a las u b ra m a n rim v . IN S , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), an d w ill r ever s e t hem onl yi f “a nyr eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he con t rar y , ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)( 4)( B ). W e revi ew l egal conclusi on s de novo . T ous s ai nt v. A G o f th e U n it ed S tat es, 45 5 F . 3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). II I. T h e P at e l s f

i r s t ar g u e th at

th e B I A e rr e di nd e n yi n g th e i r a p p l i c at i o n s f

o r a s yl u m b ecau se th ey

p o ssess a w ell-f

o un d edf ear o f f u ture p ersecu tio nf

ro m P rav ininIn d ia. To qual i fyfor as y l um bas ed on a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, an appl i canthas t he bur den t o s how “t hat s he has a genui ne fe ar , and t hat a r eas onabl e per s on i n her c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld f

e a r p e rse c u tio n if

re tu rn e d to h e r n a tiv e c o u n try .” G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e p erse cu ti o n m u st be o n ac co u n t of the a p p li ca n t’ s “r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup, or pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A ). T h is C irc u it, a lo n g w ith th e B IA , h a s d e f in e d p e rse c u tio n “ to i ncl ude t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or t ur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e t hat t hey co n sti tute a thre at t o li fe o r free d o m . ” F ati n v . IN S , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). U pon r evi ew i ng t he B I A ’ s and I J ’ s deci s i ons , w e fi nd no r ever s i bl e er r or . A s t he IJ c o rre c tlyn o ted in h e r d e c isio n , the re is n o e v id e n c e th a t Pr avi n i s a s s oc i at e d wi th the gove rnm e nt

of I ndi ai n any

way , or that the gove rnm e nt

i s unabl e or

unwi l l i ng t o c ontr ol h im . F o r th is reaso n , th eir p etitio n s m u st f ail. G ao , 2 9 9 F .3 dat 2 7 2 (statin g th at, to-5-

estab lishelig ib ility

f o r asylu m , anap p lican t m u st sh o w th at t he per s ecut i on w i l l be

“ c o m m itt e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r f o rc e s th e g o v e rn m e n t is u n w ill in g o r u n a b le to c o n t r o l . ” ) . F u r t h e r mo r e , a s t h e I J c o r r e c t l yn o t e d , t h r e e y e a r s p a s s e d b e t we e n t h e t i me th a t P ra v in f

irst le a rn e d o f

th e P a tel’s c o o p e ra tio n w ith f e d e ra l law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls a n d th e d a te o f

th e P a tels ’ re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a n d th a t, du rin g th a t ti m e , the P a tels re sid e d a t th e sa m e a d d re ss . T h e re w a s n o e v id e n c e , tho u g h , tha t an yo n e attem p tedto harm them du ri ng that

ti m e. Mo re ov er , the IJfo un d the Pate ls ’ c la im s of f uture pe r s e c ut i on t o be unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the y c oul d l i ke l y

r e t urn t o I ndi aand ne ve r

be de t e c t e d by

Pr avi n due t o the c ountry ’ s l ar ge s i z e and i mm e ns e popul at i on. Se e 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 .13(b)(2)(C)( ii ) (prec luding a finding of a wel l- fo un ded f

ear of p er se cuti on wh er e the a ppl i c ant c oul d avoi d pe r s e c ut i on by r e l oc at i ng t o anothe r

part of the c ountry) . Al l of th ese f in d in g s w ere sup p o rtedb y sub stan tial ev id en ce. Th e Pat el s argue, tho ug h, that the I J andBIA err ed by

no t finding that

they ar e “m em b ers o f a p articu lar so cial g ro up ” un d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A) : nam e l y , “ non c r i m i na l i nform ant s fr om I ndi awho have c oope r at e d e xt e ns i ve l y wi th l aw e nfor c e m e nt ag en cies inth e U n itedS tates.” (P et. B r. 1 9 .) T h e B IA rej ectedth is co n ten tio n , citin g its de c i s i on i n I n r e C- A- , 23 I . & . N. De c . 951, 952 ( BI A 2006) , whi c h he l d that “ noncrim in al in f

o rm an ts [ are] n o t a ‘p articu lar so cial g ro up .’” We w ill n o t d isturb th is ru lin g . Eve n i f the Pat e l s do be l ong t o apart i c ul ar s oc i a l gr oup, the y

have s t i l l fa i l e d t o pr e s e nt any evidence that

the gov er

nm ent of Ind ia

is un able or un will ing to con tr ol Pravin or thatInth eir b rief s, th e P atels d o n o t ch allen g e th e B IA ’s an dIJ’s d en ials o f th eir 1 ap p licatio n s f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

rem o v al an dp ro tectio nun d er th e C o n v en tio nA g ain st To rt ure. Accordingly , tho se cl ai m s have been waived. See Alaka v. AG o f the Un it ed Stat es , 456 F.3d88 , 94 (3dCir. 20 06 ). -6- th ey p o ssess a w ell-f

o un d edf ear o f p ersecu tio n . A cco rd in g ly , th eir p etitio nm u st f ail. A s w e have hel d, t he I J ’ s and B I A ’ s deni al of as y l um m aybe r ever s ed “onl yi f t he evi dence pr es ent ed by[t he pet i t i oner ] w as s uch t hat a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder w oul d have t o concl ude t hat t he r equi s i t e fe ar of per s ecut i on exi s t ed. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). T h e P a te ls h a v e n o t s a tis f ie d th is b u rd e n . Accordingly , the IJ ’s and BI A’ s de ni a l of the the i r a s yl um a ppl i c at i ons wi l l not

be di s t ur be d. 1 II I. Next, the Pate ls ar gu e that the BIA’s andIJ ’s fail ure t o con si der the go vernm ent’ s o b lig atio n s un d er th e “state-createdd an g er th eo ry” v io latedth eir sub stan tiv e du e p ro cess ri gh ts un der the Fifth A m endm ent of the Un it ed Stat es Co nsti tuti on . Und er the s tate c r e at e d dange r

the ory , “ the gove rnm e nt ha s ac ons t i t

ut i ona l duty

t o pr ot e c t

ape r s on a ga i ns t i njur i e s i nfl i c t e d by

athi r d- party

whe n i t a ffi rm at i ve l y

pl a c e s the pe r s on i n a pos i t i on of dange r

the pe r s on woul d not

othe rwi s e have fa c e d. ” Kam ar av. AG of the U n itedS tates, 4 2 0 F .3 d2 0 2 , 2 1 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e P atels arg u e th at, b y o f f erin g to help the gov er

nm ent i n its invest igat ion o f P ravin, the gov er nm ent had a duty

to ensure that Pr avi n woul d not

harm the m . I n Kam ar a , though, we une qui voc a l l y r e je c t e d the ap p licab ility

o f th e state-createdd an g er th eo ry inth e imm ig ratio nco n tex t. Id . at 2 1 7 .The Pat e l s have m ove d for a“ s t ay of r e m ova l pe ndi ng r e s ol ut i on of the pe t i t i on 2 for r e vi e w. ” I na s m

uc h a s we have de ni e d the Pat e l s ’ pe t i t i on, we wi l l de ny the i r m ot i on as m o o t. -7- The r e for e , we wi l l not

gr ant the pe t i t i on on thi s gr ound. 2

I V. For the for e goi ng r e a s ons , we wi l l de ny the pe t i t i on.