2010 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 Third C ir c uit 8-30-2010 

# J e an J o seph v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2489

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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
" J e an J os ep h v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 695. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/695NOT 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. 09- 2489

___________ J EA N J O SEPH a /k / a /J AC QUE S AR I S T I DE a /k /a “ H A T IA N J E A N ,”

Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n 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 ( A gencyN o. A 72- 039- 885) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erD ur l i ng

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y14, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t30, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM J ean J os eph, a ci t i zen of H ai t i w ho fl ed H ai t i byboati n 1992, w as i nt er di ct ed at se a sh o rtlyth e re a f

ter , an d tra n sf

e rre d to th e U n ited S tate s w h e re h e a p p lied im m e d iate lyJ o s e p h ’ s 1 9 9 2 a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n w a s n o ta d j u d i c a t e d a f

t e rh e w a s c o n v i c t e d . 1 2 foras y l um bas ed on hi s part i ci pat i on as an ea r l yfol l ow erand ac t i ve pol i t i cal s uppor t erof f o rm e r P re sid e n t A ristid e . In 1 9 9 9 , Jo se p h w a s c o n v icte d in f e d e ra l d istric t co u rt in F lo rid a o f

c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e under21 U . S. C . §§ 846 and 841( a) ( 1) . H e compl et ed 1 hi s s ent ence i n D ece m ber2007, and i n M ay2007, the G overnm ents erved J os eph w i th a N ot i ce t o A ppear , char gi ng hi m as r emovabl e bas ed on hi s fel onydrug convi ct i ons and on h is e n tryin to th e c o u n tryw ith o u t a v a lid e n tryd o c u m e n t. J os eph conc eded hi s i nel i gi bi l i tyforas y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , but ap p li ed fo r pro tecti o n u n d er the U n it ed N ati o n s C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). I n addi t i on t o hi s ow n t es t i m ony , J os eph pr es ent ed thr ee otherw i tnes s es : R obertSt ei n, Ph. D , a cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s t ; M i chel l e K ar s han, founderand Execut i ve D i r ect orof A ltern a tiv e C h a n c e , a n o n p ro f it o rg a n iza tio n d e d ica ted to a ss istin g c rim in a l d e p o rte e s to H a iti ; an d B ria n C o n c a n n o n , E sq ., D ire c to r o f th e In stitu te f

o r Ju stic e & D e m o c ra c yin H a iti . T o g e th e r, th e ir tes tim o n yin d ica ted th a t Jo se p h w a s b e a ten se v e re lyf o r h is a c tiv ity in th e L a v a las P a rtya n d A ristid e ’s p o lit ica l m o v e m e n t in 1 9 9 1 ; if h e w a s re tu rn e d to H a iti , h e w o u ld b e p lac e d in a d e ten tio n c e n ter o r p riso n a s a c rim in a l d e p o rte e ; h e w o u ld r i s k ext or t i on i n a gene r al l ycorruptpr i s on s y s t em; he w oul d r i s k phy s i cal abus e bypr i s on guar ds beca us e of hi s m ent al i l l nes s and phy s i cal abus e on ac countof hi s pol i t i cal bel i efs b yp riso n g u a rd s w h o a re f o rm e r A n ti-A ristid e m ili tar yo f f ice rs a n d in su rg e n ts; a n d th a t,3

i n the eve nthe i s r el eas ed i nt o the gene r al H ai t i an popul at i on, he w i l l fac e a “ s i gni fi cant p o ssibil ity ” tha t he w il l be to rtu red b ym em b ers o f th e N ati o n al P o li ce F o rce w h o are fo rm er a n ti -A ri sti d e m il it arym em b ers a n d insu rge n ts. In a d d it ion to o ther d o cu m en tary evi dence , J os eph s ubm i t t ed af fi davi t s fr om hi s w i fe, hi s br other - i n- l aw , and thr ee f r i ends
w h o c u rre n tlyliv e in H a iti . T he I J deni ed C A T r el i ef a nd or der ed J os eph r emoved t o H ai t i . B ydeci s i on dat ed A p ri l 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . A l though the I J di s cr edi t ed J os eph’ s t es t i m ony , the B I A di d notbas e i t s det erm i nat i on on the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he B I A agr eed w i th the I J , how ever , that J os eph fa i l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence demonstr at i ng thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not thathe w oul d be t or tur ed bygovernm entoffi ci al s orper s ons act i ng on thei rbehal f and thathe di d notdemonstr at e thathe w oul d be per s onal l yatr i s k. A m ong otherthi ngs , the B I A det erm i ned thatJ os eph’ s m ent al i l l nes s cl ai m w as di s t i ngui s habl e fr om othercas es that inv o lved ali en s w h o w ere p ron e to v iolen ce an d w h o su ff ere d fro m m o re se v ere m e n tal illn e ss e s th a t m a d e th e m re a d ytar g e ts f o r p riso n a b u se . T h e B o a rd a lso h e ld th a t, al though J os eph w as t or tur ed i n 1991 beca us e he w as an A r i s t i de s uppor t erand mem ber of the Laval as Par ty , ther e w as no “cl earpr obabi l i tythataft er17 y ear s the r es pondent
w ill b e to rt u re d f

o r h is p re v io u s s u p p o rto f L a v a la s o r A ri s tid e .” Jo se p h p re se n ts a p e tit io n f o r re v iew , w h ich th e G o v e rn m e n t ch a llen g e s p rim a rily on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds . B eca us e the bas i s forJ os eph’ s r emoval i s hi s convi ct i on foranJo se p h a ss e rts th a t, de sp ite th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m isc h a ra c ter iza tio n , h is “ a ll 2 re lev a n t ev id e n c e ” c laim is n o t a d u e p ro c e ss c laim . (S e e R e p ly , at 4 .) H e n c e , w e w ill notaddr es s i tunderthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. 4 a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y , o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s l i mi t e d b yth e REAL I D Ac tt o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms and ques t i ons of l aw . See Pi err e v. A t t orneyG en. , 528 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( en banc) ( ci t i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) - ( D ) ) ; s ee a l s o Si l va- R engi fo v. A t t orneyG en. , 473 F. 3d 58, 63 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r el y i ng on K amar a v. A t t orneyG en. , 420 F. 3d 202, 210- 11 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatthe “j ur i s di ct i onal gr antr egar di ng appea l s by a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n s e x ten d s n o t ju st to leg a l d e ter m in a tio n s b u t als o to a p p lica tio n o f law to fac t s ”) . W e ca nnotr evi s i tthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs i n the r ecor d. A l aka v. A t t orneyG en. , 456 F. 3d 88, 102 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W i th r es pectt o C A T cl ai m s , the ques t i on of the l i kel i hood o f to rtu re is a m ix e d o n e , co m p rise d o f a f a c tu a l co m p o n e n t (“ w h a t is lik e lyto h a p p e n to the pet i t i oneri f r emoved”) and a l egal one ( “does w hati s l i kel yt o happen a m ountt o the le g a l d e f in itio n o f to rt u re ” ). K a p lu n v . A tto rn e yG e n ., 6 0 2 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). J os eph pr es ent s tw o l egal ques t i ons : w hetherthe B I A s uffi ci ent l yr evi ew ed al l r el evant e v id e n c e o f

to rtu re u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(3 ); a n d w h e th e r th e B IA e rre d in 2 d e ter m in in g th a t th e e v id e n c e Jo se p h p re se n ted d id n o t am o u n t to to rtu re a s th a t term is d e f in e d u n d e r t h e la w . A c c o rd in g ly, th is C o u rth a s ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w h is p e titio n . See, e. g. , Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at184. W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s l egal deci s i ons de novo. K amar a, 420 F. 3d at211. D e f e rra l o f re m o v a l u n d e r th e C A T is m a n d a to ryif a n a lien c a n sh o w th a t itisI n as s es s i ng w hetheri ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatan appl i cantw oul d be t or tur ed 3 in the p rop o sed co u n tryo f re m o v al, “a ll ev iden ce relev an t t o the p o ssibil ityo f f u ture t or tur e s hal l be cons i der ed . . . . ” 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 3) . “A l l r el evantevi dence ” i ncludes “evidence o f pastt orture as w el l as cond i t i on s i n the cou ntrythat w ou l d incr ease the likeliho o d o f h ist o ryrep ea ti n g it self.” Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 5 m or e l i kel ythan notthathe ors he w i l l be t or tur ed. See Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at186 ( ci t i ng 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 7 (a )). A n a c t is to rtu re if it i s in f licte d b yo r a t th e in stig a tio n o f , o r w ith the cons entoracqui es cenc e of, a publ i c off i ci al orotherper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty , forobt ai ni ng i nform at i on ora conf es s i on, forpuni s hm ent , fori nt i m i dat i on or coer ci on, orforanyr eas on bas ed on di s cr i m i nat i on of anyki nd. See i d. at189. T he i m pri sonm ent of cri m i nal depo rt ees i n H ai t i i n o bject i velydep l orabl e and harsh condi t i ons gener al l ydoes notcons t i tut e t or tur e. I d. H ow ever , i f author i t i es pl ace an i ndi vi dual i n s uch condi t i ons i n or dert o caus e s ever e pai n and s uffe r i ng, s uch an a ctm ay ri se to the lev el of

tortu re, pro v ided the o ther C A T req u ir em en ts are m et. Id. at 19 0 . If the C A T cl ai m r el i es on a s er i es of s uppos i t i ons , the pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e that eac h hypothet i cal eventi n the cha i n i s m or e l i kel ythan nott o occur . See I n r e J - F- F- , 23 I . & N . D ec. 912, 917- 18 & n. 4 ( B I A 2006) ; s ee a l s o Savchuck v. M ukas ey , 518 F. 3d 1 1 9 , 1 2 3 -24 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Jo sep h claim s tha t th e B IA fa il ed to co n side r un reb u tt ed ev iden ce o f p ast t o rtu re a n d e x is tin g c o u n tr yc o n d itio n s th a t a re “ re le v a n t to th e p o s s ib ility o f f u tu re to rt u re ,” under8 C . F. R . § 1208. 16( c) ( 3) . H e not es , i n part i cul ar , thatther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the 36

B I A ’ s opi ni on thatthe B oar d cons i der ed C oncannon’ s expertt es t i m ony , as w el l as e v id e n c e f

ro m v a rio u s s o u rc e s (in c lu d in g th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rt f o r H a iti , i s s ued i n M ar ch 2008) thatchr oni cl ed human r i ght s abus es i n H ai t i fr om 2004 thr ough 2 0 0 8 , p e rp e tr a te d in p a rtb yth e H a itia n N a tio n a l P o lic e a n d a rm e d a n ti- L a v a la s g ro u p s . J os eph r el i es pr i m ar i l yon Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 477, 479 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( h o l d i n g th a tth e B I A e rr e d u n d e r8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , w h e n i t“ p r o v i d [ e d ] o n l y a m i ni m al anal y s i s of Zubeda’ s cl ai m ” and “ cava l i er l ydi s m i s s ed the s ubs t ant i al document at i on of condi t i ons i n the D R C [D emocr at i c R epubl i c of Congo]” ) . ( Pet . B r . at 22 ( A w ol es i v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 227, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and Sot t o v. I N S, 748 F. 2d 8 3 2 , 8 3 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ).) T he B I A m us tpr ovi de s uffi ci entdet ai l t o al l ow the r evi ew i ng courtt o di s cern the bas i s of i t s deci s i on, buti ti s notobl i gat ed t o addr es s eac h pi ece of document aryevi dence i n i t s opi ni on. T ous s ai ntv. A t t orneyG en. , 455 F. 3d 409, 414 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; Z heng v. A tto rn e yG e n ., 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). H e re , the B o a rd p ro v id e d e n o u g h d e tail f o r u s to c o n d u c t a m e a n in g f u l r e v ie w o f

its d e n ia l o f

J o s e p h ’s s o le c la im u n d e r t h e C A T . T h e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t Jo se p h f a iled “ to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e ” th a t h e w o u ld be per s onal l yatr i s k of t or tur e upon hi s r eturn t o H ai t i i ndi cat es thatthe B oar d had c o n sid e re d a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e o f

re c o rd . T o u ss a in t, 45 5 F .3 d a t 4 1 5 (“ B IA ’s r e f e re n c e to ‘i n su ff ici en t evid en ce ’ i n d icates tha t i t w eigh ed the e v iden ce an d fo u n d itlack ing . . . . ”). N ext , J os eph ar gues thatthe B oar d err ed i n rul i ng thatthe evi dence pr es ent edJ os eph as s ert s thathi s cas e i s s i m i l art o L avi r a v. A t t orneyG ener al , 478 F. 3d 4 158 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , I n r e Zephi r i n, N o. A 45- 481- 814, at*8 ( B I A J an. 22, 2008) , and J eanP ier re v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 50 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 (1 1 C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e d isa g re e . H e re , M ich e lle th K a rsh a n tes tifie d o n lyth a t m e n tallyill d e p o rte e s w h o c a ll atte n tio n to th e m se lv e s b yth e ir bi zarr e beha vi ororthei rnoncompl i ance w oul d be s i ngl ed outforphy s i cal abus e by pr i s on guar ds , and thatotherw i s e, phy s i cal abus e, i f any , w oul d be r andom. ( A pp. at57a & 9 3 a .) 7 r egar di ng the l i kel i hood of hi s t or tur e i n a H ai t i an det ent i on cent erorpr i s on di d not amount t o the l egal defi ni t i on of t or tur e. A s the B I A not ed, the bas i c condi t i ons of det ent i on i n H ai t i , al though admi t t edl ydepl or abl e, do notamount t o t or tur e underthe l aw . Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at191. J os eph cl ai m s , how ever , thathe w i l l fac e per s onal r i s k of to rtu re in d e ten tio n b e c a u se h e su f f e rs f ro m m a jo r d e p re ss io n a n d w ill b e su b jec t to p h y sical ab u se a n d inh u m an e li v ing co n d it ion s fo r th at reaso n . H e re li es o n the e x p ert M i chel l e K ar s han’ s t es t i m onythatm ent al l yi l l det ai nees m aybe s i ngl ed outforphy s i cal ab u se b ec au se o f th eir biza rre b eh av ior an d inab il ityto co m p lyw ith p ri so n rules, an d D r. R obertSt ei n’ s r eports t at i ng that , w i thoutthe nec es s arytr eatm entforhi s depr es s i on and otherm edi cal condi t i ons , and abs enthum ane l i vi ng condi t i ons i n the H ai t i an pr i s on or det ent i on cent er , J os eph i s l i kel yt o “s i m pl ycur l up i n a cornerand nots ayanythi ng at a ll. ” (P e t. B r. at 2 9 .) W e c o n c lu d e th a t th is e v id e n c e , alth o u g h d e e p lytro u b lin g , fa lls 4 sh o rt o f d e m o n stra tin g to rtu re a s th a t term is d e f in e d u n d e r th e law , b e c a u se it fa ils to s how the r equi s i t e s peci fi c i nt enton the partof the H ai t i an author i t i es . Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at 191; cf. V i l l egas v. M ukas ey , 523 F. 3d 984, 989 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng thatthe con dit i on s of t he M exican m ental health sy st em , w hich w ere cr eat ed b y“off i ci al s’E ven i f w e had j ur i s di ct i on t o conducta s ubs t ant i al evi dence r evi ew as J os eph 5 s ugges t s , w e coul d notconcl ude thata r eas onabl e fa ct - fi nderw oul d be compel l ed t o fi nd thatthe B I A ’ s deni al of C A T r el i ef w as w r ong. W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) ) . A s a n a tiv e o f

H a iti , Jo se p h m a yb e a b le to re m a in in th e U n ited S tate s d e sp ite 6 th e f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l if h e a p p lies f o r th e tem p o ra ryp ro tec ted sta tu s m a d e a v a ilab le a f ter th e e a rth q u a k e e a rlierth is y e a r. S e e 7 5 F e d . R e g . 3 4 7 6 -7 9 (Ja n . 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) (a v a ilab le o n lin e a t h ttp ://e d o c k e t.a c c e s s .g p o .g o v /2 0 1 0 /2 0 1 0 -1 1 6 9 .h tm ). 8 hi s t or i cal gr os s negl i gence and mi s under s t andi ng of the natur e of ps y chi atr i c i l l nes s , ” do n o t am o u n t t o tortu re f

o r C A T p u rpo ses). Jo sep h also claim s tha t he w il l be to rtu red b yp ri so n o ff ici als i n o rde r t o ex tort m on eyfrom him and his fam i l y . A s the B IA con cl ud ed, ho w ever, the p ri son g uards’ ext or t i on pr act i ces , and thei rdi s r egar d forthe H ai t i an Supr eme C our t ’ s 2006 rul i ng ren d ering au tom ati c d eten ti o n o f d ep o rt ee s u n co n sti tuti o n al, w as n o t i n tend ed to torture th e d e p o rte e s, b u t ra th e r to e n g a g e in w id e sp re a d e x to rtio n f o r p e c u n iar yg a in a n d to pr es erve an unl aw ful s our ce of r evenue . 5 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 6