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 6-26-2008 

# M arinescu v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2797

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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
" M ar ine s c u v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 978. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/978NOT 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. 05- 2797

___________ RO BE RT M AR I NE S CU , Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

___________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 70- 359- 595) I m m i gr at i on J udge: W al tD ur l i ng

___________ A R G U E D J U N E 14, 2007 B efore: M cK E E , S T A P L E T O N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 26, 2008) A nt honyR . H ol t zman, E s q. ( A r gued) D avi d R
. Fi ne, E s q. K i rkpat ri ck & L ock hartP res t on G at es E l l i s 1 7 N o rth S ec o n d S tr ee t, 1 8 th F loo r H arr i s bur g, PA 17101

C ouns el forPet i t i oner
M aryC
. Fr y e, E s q. ( A r gued)2

O f f i c e o f U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

C ouns el forR es pondent

___________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. T his peti t i on for r eview com es t o u s fol l ow i ng the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’
rev ersa l of

the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s o rde r t o w ith h o ld rem o v al of p eti ti o n er R o b ert M a r i n e s c u t o Ro ma n i a i n a c c o r d wi t h I NA § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 )
. F o rth e r e a s o n s d e t a i l e d b e l o w,
w e w i l l gr antM r . M ar i nes cu’ s pet i t i on and r emand t o t he B oar d forfur t hercons i der at i on
cons i s t entw i t h ourhol di ng.

I . M r. M ari nescu is a ci t i zen o f R om ania w ho w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es as a l aw ful perm anentr es i dent
. H e w as l at erpl ace d i nt o r emoval pr ocee di ngs byi s s uance of a N ot i ce t o A ppear , l i s t i ng t hr ee c r i m i nal convi ct i ons dat i ng fr om 1994 t o 1997, m aki ng hi m i nel i gi bl e fordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef. M ar i nes cu expr es s ed fe arof r eturni ng t o R om ani a. M ar i nes cu and hi s fathert es t i fi ed i n s upportof hi s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of
r emoval pur s uantt o s ect i on 241( b) ( 3) and pur s uantt o A r t i cl e 3 of the U
. N . C onvent i on A g a in s t T o rt u re . M r. M a ri n e s c u a n d h is f a m ily a re o f

th e R o m a (“ g yp s y ” ) e th n ic g ro u p .3

T he t es t i m onyoffe r ed byM ar i nes cu foc us ed upon the cons equenc es of ethni c ani m us agai ns tR om a thathe w i l l fac e i f he w as r eturned t o R om ani a. T hes e cons equenc es in c lu d e d d e a th th re a ts . T h e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e told M arine scu that the testi m o n yd id n o t sup p o rteith er a f in d in g o f p a st p e rse c u tio n o r a f

in d in g o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . A t M a rin e sc u ’s r e q u e st, h o w e v e r, t h e c o u rt p e rm itte d h im to a u g m e n t th e re c o rd w ith f u rt h e r e v id e n c e . R econve ni ng t hr ee mont hs l at er , M ar i nes cu pr offe r ed I an H ancoc k, Ph. D . T he J udge
acc ept ed D r . H ancoc k as an expe r tw i t nes s w ho t es t i fi ed s peci fi cal l yaboutthe l i vi ng condi t i ons of R om a i n R om ani a. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge cr edi t ed the expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony , and found the fol l ow i ng: ap p rox im ately9 5 % o f th e R o m a p o p u lat ion in all areas o f th e c o u n tryli v e w ith an o v ert fea rof vi ol ence ; R om a ar e r egul ar l yt ar get ed forvi ol entr epr i s al s and di s cr i m i nat i on f ro m f e llo w c iti z e n s a n d p o lice th ro u g h o u t R o m a n ian so c iety ; p o lice ro u tin e lyf a il t o i n t e r v e n e t o s t o p i n s t a n c e s o f “ mo b ru l e ; ” a n d , th e p o l i c e th e ms e l v e s o f t e n tr e a tRo ma b ru tally . T h e Ju d g e a lso c re d ited A m n e styIn ter n a tio n a l re p o rts th a t d o c u m e n t eth n ica lly b a s e d p o lic e v io le n c e a g a in s t R o m a w h o a re in c a rc e ra te d
. R egar di ng M ar i nes cu’ s pl i ght , the J udge found that , byvi r tue of hi s phy s i cal appea r ance , acc entand s ur name, he w i l l be r eadi l yi dent i fi ed as R om a byot her R om ani ans and the pol i ce. T hi s m akes i tl i kel ythatM ar i nes cu, as i s the ca s e w i t h t he
vas tm aj or i t yof R om a, w i l l be s ubj ectt o r out i ne vi ol ence w i t houtpol i ce pr ot ect i on, as4

w el l as s ubs t ant i al di s cr i m i nat i on i n educa t i on, hous i ng, m edi cal car e, empl oym entand soci al services
. L ooki ng t o t he futur e, t he J udge al s o found thatgovernm enteff or t s di r ect ed at i m pr ovi ng t he l i fe of

R om a i s a fa cade t o coverl ong- s t andi ng s oci et al and governm ent al ethni c ani m us . T hes e pr ogr ams have been “ document ed fa i l ur es . ” The Judge found that
c o n d itio n s f

o r t h e R o m a in R o m a n ia h a v e g ro w n w o rs e s in c e th e f a ll o f C o m m u n is m . M ar i nes cu’ s expertw as confr ont ed w i t h t he C ount r yR epor t , w hi ch contr adi ct ed t he expe r t ’ s t es t i m onyon t he s i ncer i t yand s ucce s s of the governm ent ’ s eff or t s . T he Ju d g e c re d ited th e e x p e rt’s te stim o n yth a t th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t h a s c o n sis ten tlyf a iled to under s t and the r eal i t i es of the di s cr i m i nat i on and vi ol ence s uffe r ed byR om a, and has
r out i nel yi gnor ed dat a thathe has pr ovi ded t o t hem. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge dee m ed the C o u n tr yR e p o rt to b e u n re lia b le in its d e s c ri p tio n o f R o m a lif

e in R o m a n ia
. Fr om t hes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs t he I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded that“the unr ebutt ed evi dence i n t hi s r ecor d poi nt s t o s uch a hi gh degr ee of di s cr i m i nat i on and vi ol ence that t he courti s s at i s fi ed thatper s ecut i on has been e s t abl i s hed byr es pondenton acc ountof
ra c e o r e th n icitya s a R o m a .” M o re o v e r, th e Ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t M a rin e sc u m e t h is b u rd e n o f

p ro o f to e sta b lish a c lea r p ro b a b ili tyth a t h e w ill b e p e rse c u ted if re tu rn e d to R o m a n ia
. I n addr es s i ng r el i ef s oughtunderthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e A ct , the I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded thatM ar i nes cu w as l i kel yt o be det ai ned upon hi s r etur n.5

H e al s o det erm i ned thats uch det ent i on w oul d pr obabl ys ubj ecthi m t o phy s i cal at t acks by pol i ce. T he J udge s ai d “i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatr es pondentw i l l s uffe rt or tur e upon hi s r etur n. ” N onethel es s , t he J udge di d notrul e on thi s cl ai m , s t at i ng thati t“nee d notbe addr es s ed” be caus e M ar i nes cu had methi s bur den t o be el i gi bl e forot herr el i ef. T he governm entappea l ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s fi ndi ngs . T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s r ever s ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on. O n t he l i vi ng condi t i ons of R om a, t he B oar d s ai d:

T h e e v id e n c e sh o w s b o th th a t co n sid e ra b le in e q u iti e s in acc es s t o hous i ng, l ucr at i ve empl oym entoppor tuni t i es , and s oci al s ervi ces r emai n, and thatcas es of unj us t i fi ed pol i ce vi ol ence agai ns tR om a cont i nue t o be r epor t ed. W ith re g a rd to g o v e rn m e n t ef f o rts to im p ro v e th e life o f R o m a , the B o a rd sta ted : W e not e thatt he evi dence t ends t o s how thatthe R om ani an governm ent , w hi l e w or ki ng t ow ar d admi s s i on i nt o t he E u ro p e a n U n io n is c o m m itt e d to e f f e c tin g its a n tidi s cr i m i nat i on fr amew or k fori m pr ovi ng the s i tuat i on of the R o m a in la w , p o lic e a n d p ra c tic e . U pon t hes e fi ndi ngs , t he B oar d concl uded thatM ar i nes cu di d notm eethi s bur den of p ro v in g e lig ib ili tyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. W i t h r egar d t o r el i ef unde rt he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, the B oar d found that the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e inc o rrectl yo v erloo k ed the c ross ex am ination o f M arine scu ’s expert , w hi ch r evea l ed thathe w as s pecul at i ng w hen he s t at ed thatM ar i nes cu w oul d be det ai ned and t or tur ed upon hi s r eturn. W hi l e r ecogni zi ng thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge
r efr ai ned fr om adj udi cat i ng t hi s i s s ue, the B oar d vi ew ed the s pecul at i ve natur e of theW e under s t and the cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d i n t hi s i ns t ance t o m ean thatthe 1. Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s d e c isio n is re v e rsib le o n lyin situ a tio n s in w h ich “ a n yre a so n a b le ad jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary , ” 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ); J is h ia s h v ili v . A tto r n e

y G e n e r a l o

f th e U.S ., 4 0 2 F .3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

6 expert ’ s opi ni on on t hi s t opi c as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on. T he B oar d form al l ydeni ed r el i ef t o M ar i nes cu underthe C onvent i on.

II. T he B oar d r ever s ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s deci s i on, decl ar i ng thatM ar i nes cu

“ h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro v in g e lig ib ili tyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l.” T h is det erm i nat i on i s s ubj ectt o ourr evi ew fors ubs t ant i al evi dence
. Y et , M ar i nes cu chal l enges t he B oar d’ s deci s i on on a di ffe r entgr ound. H e pet i t i oned us t o r evi ew
w h e th e r t h e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n c o n f o rm s to th e f

o llo w in g re g u la tio n . T he B oar d w i l l notengage i n de novo r evi ew of fi ndi ngs of fac tdet erm i ned byan i m m i gr at i on j udge. Fact s det erm i ned by th e im m ig ra tio n ju d g e , inc lu d in g f in d in g s a s to th e c re d ib ili ty of t es t i m ony , s hal l be r evi ew ed onl yt o det erm i ne w hetherthe fi nd i ng s of t he im m i grat i on j ud ge are cl earl yerr on eou s. 8 C
. F . R . § 1 0 0 3
. 1 (d)(3 )(i ). M a rin e sc u a rg u e s th a t th e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n to d e n yh im w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l is i m pr operbeca us e i tfai l ed t o i dent i fyhow , i f atal l , the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs w er e cl ear l yerr oneous . W e agr ee. W e fi nd tw o as pect s of the B oar d’ s deci s i on 1 t o be pr obl emat i c.7

Fi r s t , w i t houtanys peci fi c r efe r ence t o t he r ecor d, the B oar d s etas i de the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g th a t th e R o m a n ian g o v e rn m e n t’s s u p p o se d e f f o rts to quel l ant i
- R om a di s cr i m i nat i on and vi ol ence w er e document ed fa i l ur es and a s ham. T he B oar d concl uded exa ct l yt he oppos i t e: thatthe R om ani an governm enti s w or ki ng ef fe cti v elyto f

igh t eth n ic discrim ination an d v iolen ce ag ains t R o m a. T h e B o ard ’s d e c isio n d id n o t co n tain a n yd isc u ss io n o f sp e c if ica llyw h yit rea c h e d th e o p p o site concl us i on. Fur t her , t he B oar d di d notpr ovi de anydecl ar at i on ordi s cus s i on of cl ear
err orbyt he J udge. M o reo v er, w e d ed u ce that the B o ard m u st ha v e se t asi d e the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s
cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons t o r eac h i t s concl us i on aboutthe pr ogr es s and i m pactof governm ent al pr ogr ams. W e s ur m i s e thi s beca us e the B oar d’ s fi ndi ng thatthe g o v e rn m e n t is su c c e ss f

u llya d v a n c in g its a n ti-d isc rim in a tio n p ro g ra m s b o th c o n tra d icts evi dence found cr edi bl e byt he J udge and a gr ees w i t h evi dence thatthe J udge rul ed w as
u n re lia b le . T h e B o a rd , h o w e v e r, d id n o t m a k e a n ye f f o rt to ju s tif

yits f in d in g . S ig n if ica n tly , itd id n o t re f

e re n c e a n ysp e c if

ic c lea r e rro r in th e Ju d g e ’s c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n . T he s econd pr obl em t hatw e i dent i fyi n t he B oar d’ s deci s i on i s thati tdes cr i bes t he di s cr i m i nat i on of R om a i n t erm s s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r entfr om the I m m i gr at i on J udge. T he J udge found that95% of R om a i n R om ani a l i ve i n an “ove r tfea rof vi ol ence , ” and that “s ubs t ant i al ” di s cr i m i nat i on exi s t s i n educa t i on, hous i ng, m edi cal car e, empl oym entand8

so c ial s e rv ice s. In c o n tra st, th e B o a rd re f e rs o n lyto “ c a se s o f

u n ju stif ied v io len c e ” a n d to “cons i der abl e i nequi t i es ” i n acc es s t o hous i ng, s oci al s ervi ces , and “l ucr at i ve” empl oym ent . T he t erm s and qual i fi er s expr es s ed bythe B oar d r es ul ti n s ubt l e but
s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence s fr om t he fi ndi ngs of the I m m i gr at i on J udge. T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e g ra n ted re lief to M a rin e sc u b e c a u se h e f o u n d th a t an tiR om a di s cr i m i nat i on and vi ol ence w er e s o pervas i ve and s ever e thati tcons t i tut ed a li k eli h o o d o f f

u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e B o ard ’s de cisi o n d isag ree s n o t j u st w ith the J u d g e’s l egal j udgm ent , butal s o w i t h t he fa ctual pr emi s e forhi s j udgm ent . T hi s i s the crux of gener al pr obl em t hatw e have w i t h t he B oar d’ s deci s i on. T he B oar d i s obl i gat ed t o acc eptthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the I m m i gr at i on J udge
e x c e p t w h e re a re a s o n a b le ju d g e w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); J is h ia s h v ili, 4 0 2 F .3 d a t 3 9 2 . W h e re th e B o a rd su b stitu tes its
ow n i nt erpr et at i on of the fa ct s fort hos e of the I m m i gr at i on J udge, the B oar d i s engagi ng i n q uint essent i al de n ov o revi ew . T he regu l at i on s expressl yprohibi tthis
. H er e, t he B oar d cl ear l yhad a vi ew of the “f act s on t he gr ound” i n R om ani a that d i f f e r e d f r o m th a to f

t h e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e . Wh e n th e f a c tu a l p r e mi s e s o f

th e two d e c i s i o n s a r e c o mp a r e d , i ti s c l e a rt h a tth e Bo a r d s u mma r i l yd e s c r i b e d th e p l i g h to f Ro ma i n t erm s por t r ay i ng t he di s cr i m i nat i on fac ed byR om a as l es s di r e and pe r vas i ve. T he B oar d al s o for eca s t ed a br i ght erfutur e forR om a, bas ed on i t s pos i t i ve per cept i on of governm enteff

or t s . Fort hi s r eas on, w e mustdi s t i ngui s h t hi s cas e fr om thos e i n w hi ch9

t he B oar d act s s quar el yw i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on t o j udge the s uffi ci encyof evi dence t o pr ove t he l i kel i hood of futur e per s ecut i on. H er e, the B oar d fundament al l yal t er ed the fa ctual fi nd i ng s that s up po rt ed the I m m i grat i on Judg e’s grantof w i t hh oldi ng of rem ov al
. In so doi ng, t he B oar d exce eded the s cope of i t s author i t ybyconduct i ng a de novo r evi ew of th e Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e ’s d e c is io n . F inally , reg ard ing reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re, th e B o ard inco rrectl y“re v erse d ” the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s c o n clus ion that M arine scu w o u ld, m o re l i kel yt han not , be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e. T her e w as no concl us i on t o r ever s e. W hi l e the Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e c o m m e n ted u p o n e v id e n c e re lev a n t to th is c laim , h e e x p licitly refr ai ned from rul i ng up on t his rel i ef. A l t ho ug h w e dis favo r com m ents such as t ho se
m ade byt he I m m i gr at i on J udge thatunnece s s ar i l yconfus e the l i ne betw een di ct a and deci s i on, t he B oar d nonethel es s exce eded i t s author i t ybyrul i ng on a cl ai m forw hi ch a fin al ord er o f th e Im m igrati o n Ju d g e sim p lyd id n o t exist. 8 C
. F . R . § 1 0 0 3
. 1 (b).

III . F or the reasons st at ed ab ov e w e grantthe p et i t i on for r evie w a n d re m and the cau se t o t he B oar d of Imm i gr at i on A ppeal s for fur t her cons i der at i on cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s O pi ni on.10

M A R I N E SC U v. A TTO R N

E Y G EN ER A L – N o. 05- 2797 S T A P L E T O N , J ., dis s ent i ng: I concl ude thatw hat separ at ed the I J and the B I A her e w as nota di s put e about “fi ndi ngs of fa ct ” as t hatphr as e i s us ed i n 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 3) an d , fur t her , thatt he
a d m in istra tiv e sy ste m c o u ld n o t w o rk a s in ten d e d if th e B IA a p p lied th e “ f in d in g s o f

f a c t” pr ovi s i ons of thatr egul at i on t o t hi s type of di s put e. S ect i on s 100 3. 1(d)( 3)( i ), (i i ), and (i v), provide i n p artas fol l ow s: ( I ) Fact s det erm i ned byt he i m m i gr at i on j udge, i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs as t o t he cr edi bi l i t yof t es ti m ony , s hal l be r evi ew ed onl yt o det erm i ne w hethert he fi nd i ng s of t he im m i grat i on j ud ge are cl earl yerr on eou s. (ii) T h e B o a rd m a yre v iew q u e stio n s o f law , d isc re tio n , an d ju d g m e n t an d a ll ot heri s s ues i n appea l s fr om deci s i ons of i m m i gr at i on j udges de novo. * * * ( i v) E xceptfort aki ng admi ni s t r at i ve not i ce of comm onl yknow n fac t s s uch as curr entevent s ort he cont ent s of offi ci al document s , t he B oar d w i l l notengage i n fac t fi nd i ng i n the cou rs e of d eci ding app eal s. M ar i nes cu w as abl e t o offe rno evi dence t hat he had per s onal l y been per s ecut ed i n t he p a st. T h e IJ to ld h im th is a t th e e n d o f th e f irst h e a rin g a n d su g g e ste d th a t h e g e t an e x p e rt. W h at M arine scu w o u n d u p w ith w as a p att ern an d p rac ti ce ca se b ase d so lel yo n o n e e x p ert’s t e s t i mo n y . Th e I J , b a s e d o n t h a tt e s t i mo n ya n d a d e f i n i t i o n o f

“ p e r s e c u t i o n ” f

r o m a U. N. handbook, concl uded t hat M ar i nes cu had s how n i t “a cl ear pr obabi l i t y ” (i
. e. , m or e l i kel yt han not ) t hathe w oul d be per s ecut ed i f r eturned. T he B I A concl uded:11

. . . t hat the obj ect i ve evi dence of r ecor d i s i ns uffi ci entt o s how t hatt he r es pondentfac es a cl earpr obabi l i t yof harm thatw oul d r i se t o t he l evel of per s ecut i on. A l t hough t he evi dence s how s thatthe l ongs t andi ng d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st th e R o m a n i co m m u n ityc o n tin u e s to b e w id e sp re a d in pract i ce, t he ev i den ce do es not s up p o rt a fi nd i ng that the respon den tfaces a cl earpr obabi l i t yof s uffe r i ng l egal , economi c, and/ ors oci al m ar gi nal i zat i on and abus e, s uch thathi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d b e threa tened. T he evi dence s how s bot h t hatcons i der abl e i nequi t i es i n acc es s to h ous i ng l ucr at i ve empl oym entoppor tuni t i es , and s oci al servi ces r emai n, and the ca s es of u n justi fied p o li ce v iolen ce ag ains t R o m an i con ti n u e to b e re p o rt ed
. H o w ev er, unl i ke th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e , we d o n o t f i n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s h o wi n g t he curr ent , unj us tt r eatm entof the R om ani com m uni t y , i ndi vi dual l yor cu m u lat ively , ri ses to the lev el of a clear pro b ab il ity o f pe rsec u ti o n . F u rth er, w e n o te th a t th e e v id e n c e ten d s to sh o w th a t th e R o m a n ian g o v e rn m e n t, w h ile w or ki ng t ow ar d admi s s i on i nt o the Europe an U ni on, i s comm i tt ed t o eff ect i ng its a n tid isc rim in a tio n f

ra m e w o rk f

o r im p ro v in g th e situ a tio n o f th e R o m a n i in l aw , pol i cy , and pr act i ce. W e t h ere fo re f i nd t hatthe r es pondenthas notm et h is b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g e lig ib ili tyf

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, a n d w e w ill re v e rse th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s g ra n t o f re lief f ro m re m o v a l. A p p . at 21 a-2 2 a (c it ati o n s o m itted). T he B I A appe ars t o have r es ol ved tw o i s s ues her e: ( 1) w hethert he t es t i m onyof M ar i nes cu’ s expertand the r epor t s t ender ed bythe governm ents how ed a pa t t ern and pr act i ce of “pe r s ecut i on” as t hatt erm i s us ed i n t he I N A ( i
. e. , “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a t hr eat t o l i fe orfr eedom, ” L ie , 496 F . 3d at53 6); and (2) w hethert he ev i den ce as a w h o le i nd i cat ed a suf fi ci ent degree of ri sk (i
. e., m o re li k elythan n o t) that M arine scu w o u ld b e p erse cu ted in the f u ture. T h e B IA ’s
c o n c lu sio n in f

a v o r o f th e IN S o n b o th o f

th e se iss u e s d o e s n o t, I b e liev e , co n stitu te “fa ct fi ndi ng” w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 1003. 1( d) ( 3)
. I ndeed, thi s i s the veryki nd of dec i s i on12

m aki ng t he B I A fr equent l ydo es an d sh o ul d do, butw e know fr om s ubs ect i on ( i v) of the
re g u la tio n th a t “ th e B o a rd w ill n o t e n g a g e in f a c tf in d in g in th e c o u rs e o f

d e c id in g a p p e a ls .” T h e B IA d id n o t q u e stio n th e c re d ib ili tyo f M a rin e s c u ’ s e x p e rt w itn e ss . It t o o k h is t es t i m onyatfac e val ue and e val uat ed and w ei ghed i t i n t he cont ext of the cr os s - exami nat i on and the other expert evi dence bas ed on t he appl i cabl e l egal s t andar d. A r guabl y , perhaps , t he B I A r ej ect ed a f

actual fi ndi ng of the I J t hat t he acknow l edged comm i t m ent of the R om ani an governm entt o equal r i ght s for R om ani ans i s l ar gel yi neff ect i ve. H ow ever , I do notr ead the B I A ’ s “furt herm or e, w e not e” c om m entas r ej ect i ng t he IJ’ s fi ndi ng r egar di ng inef fe cti v en ess. A ll itsay s is that the R o m an ian g o v ern m en t, w h il e w o rkin g tow ard ad m issi o n into the E u rop ea n U n ion , is try ing to m ak e th ing s b ett er. M o reo v er, I do n ’treg ard th is a s cr u c ial to th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n c o n c e rn in g th e n o n -e x iste n c e o f a “ c lea r p ro b a b ili ty of per s ecut i on. ” A pp. at22a. I w oul d denyt he pet i t i on.