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 Thir d C ir c uit 10-18-2010 

# J ones 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 . 07-2137

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_2010

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 2010 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 " J one s v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 413. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/413H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 2137

_____________ I M EH I . J O N ES, 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 der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 90- 668- 783) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. W al t erA . D ur l i ng

_____________ A r gued A pr i l 13, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober18, 2010) A l exande rJ . U rbel i s ( A r gued) Ju sti n B . P erri M i chae l D . R i ps St ept oe & J ohns on N ew Y or k, N Y 10019 A t t or ney s forPet i t i oner

### 2

R . A l exande rG or i ng ( A r gued) Pet erD . K ei s l er Je f f re yJ. B e rn ste in G r egoryG . K at s as T on yW est R i char d M . E vans T hom as W . H us s ey M i chel l e G . L at our Vi r g i n i a M . Lu m 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, C i vi l D i vi s i on W as hi ngt on, D . C . 20044 A t t or ney s forR es pondent

OP I NI ON S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . I m eh I . J ones has fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . W e mustdeci de w hetherthe B I A appl i ed the appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew of the dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) i n l i ghtof ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n Kapl un v. A t t ’ y G en. , 602 F. 3d 260 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . I. Jones, a nati ve an d cit i zen o f N i geri a, enter ed the U nit ed S t at es i n 1 98 1 as a n o n im m ig ra n t. H e a d

ju s te d h is s ta tu s to th a t o f a la w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t in 1 9 9 2 . Si nce a rr i vi ng i n t hi s countr y , J ones earned a Ph. D i n economi cs , beca m e C hi ef Fi nanci al O ffi cerof the W as hi ngt on D . C . D epart m entof H eal th and r ai s ed thr ee c hi l dr en. J ones

### 3

br oughthi s m ot hert o t he U ni t ed St at es fr om N i ger i a t o be tr eat ed forcanc er . A ccor di ng t o J ones , he “r an up a s ubs t ant i al amount of debti n t r y i ng t o payforthe medi cal needs of hi s m other . ” Pet ’ r ’ s Suppl ement al B r . at3. I n or dert o payhi s debt s , J ones s t ol e money fr om t he N ew Y or k C i t yD epart m entof H eal t h and M ent al H y gi ene ove rthe cour s e of thr ee y ear s and ul t i m at el ypl ed gui l t yt o fourcount s of “TheftC oncerni ng a Pr ogr am R ece i vi ng Feder al Funds” i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 666( a) ( 1) ( A ) . A . R . at575. T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) comm ence d r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tJ ones on O ct ober26, 2005, char gi ng J ones w i t h r emovabi l i t ypur s uantt o t he Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” o r “ th e A c t” ) § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) , 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , forbei ng convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . T he I J found J ones r emovabl e, butgr ant ed hi s appl i cat i on forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , and al t ernat i vel ygr ant ed J ones defe r r al of r emoval undert he C A T in th e e v e n t th a t J o n e s w a s f o u n d s ta tu to ri ly in e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o n a p p e a l. Jo n e s a n d D H S b o th a p p e a led to th e B IA , w h ich v a c a ted th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith re g a rd to b o th b a se s f

o r C A T p ro tec tio n . S p e c if ica lly , the B IA f

o u n d Jo n e s s tatu to rily i nel i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval underthe C A T forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a p a rticu lar lyse rio u s c rim e . T h e B IA a lso v a c a ted th e d e c isio n o f th e IJ w ith re g a rd to d e f e rra l o f re m o v a l u n d e r th e C A T , fin d in g th a t th e re w a s “ in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e ” to s uppor tt he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatJ ones w oul d m or e l i kel ythan notbe det ai ned and to rt u re d if

re tu rn e d to N ig e ri a . T h is p e titio n f o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d .T hi s cour t gr ant ed t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o hol d t hi s cas e i n abey ance w hi l e the 1 G overnm ents oughtr ehea r i ng i n Kapl un . T he pet i t i on for rehear i ng w as deni ed and the m andat e i s s ued on A ugus t 4, 2010. A s s uch, the G overnm entagr ees thatdi s pos i t i on i s now appr opr i at e. 

### 4 II. T h is c o u rt h a s ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r I N A § 2 4 2 , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 , am ended by R E A L ID A c t o f 2 0 0 5 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , D iv . B , 1 1 9 S tat. 231, 305 ( 2005) . B eca us e J ones w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyas defi ned under th e Ac t , o u rr e v i e w i s l i mi t e d t o “ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w . . . . ” I NA § 2 4 2 (a)(2)(D ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ). Fol l ow i ng or al ar gum ent , t hi s cour tdi r ect ed the part i es t o s ubm i tcont empora neous m emora nda as t o t he ef fec tof ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n Kapl un v. A t t ’ y G en. , 602 F. 3d 260 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . I n Kapl un , w e hel d t hatw hen the B I A r evi ew s an I J ’ s det erm i nat i on 1 r egar di ng w hethert or tur e i s l i kel yi f an a l i en i s r emoved t o hi s orhercountr yof or i gi n, as i s the ca s e her e, i tm us texami ne s epar at el ythe “tw o di s t i nctpart s t o t he mi xed ques t i on .

. . . ” Id . a t 2 7 1 . T h e tw o p a rts a re : (1 ) w h a t is lik e lyto h a p p e n to th e p e tit io n e r if r emoved, a fa ctual ques t i on s ubj ectt o cl earerr orr evi ew bythe B I A ; and ( 2) w hether w hati s l i kel yt o happen r i s es t o t he l evel of t or tur e, a l egal ques t i on r evi ew ed de novo by th e B IA . I

d. Jo n e s a rg u e s th a t Kapl un co m p els a rev ersa l of the B IA d ec isi o n b ec au se th e B IA di d notr evi ew forcl earerr ort he fa ctual ques t i on of w hatw as l i kel yt o happen t o J ones upon deport at i on, i ns t ead us i ng t erm s l i ke “no s ubs t ant i al bas i s i n t he r ecor d, ” “no

### 5

p e rs u a s iv e e v id e n c e ,” a n d “ u n s u b s ta n tia te d ” w ith o u t c le a rl ys e ttin g f o rt h th e s ta n d a rd . Pet ’ r ’ s M em. of Law w i t h R es pectt o Ka p lu n , at2. J ones ar gues thatthe B I A confl at ed the tw o s epar at e i nqui r i es del i neat ed i n Kapl un and s uppl ant ed i t s ow n j udgm entr ather than def err i ng t o t he I J . H e as s er t s fur t herthatthe B I A m i s char act er i zed e vi dence i n t he rec o rd; n am ely , Jo n es’ testi m o n yreg ard ing w h ethe r th e N igerian au tho ri ti es w ere aw are of hi s convi ct i ons i n t he U ni t ed St at es . A l t hough notbi ndi ng on t hi s cour t ’ s r eadi ng of the B IA d ec isi o n , Jo n es a lso a rgu es th at th e G o v ern m en t has co n ce d ed that the B IA engage d i n a de novo r evi ew of the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs , r el y i ng on t he now overrul ed p re c e d e n t Ma t t e ro

f V- K- , 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 5 0 0 (B IA 2 0 0 8 ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t Kapl un do es not al t er the u l t i m at e con cl usi on becau se e v e n if th e B IA a p p lied w h a t is n o w th e in c o rre c t sta n d a rd o f re v iew , Jo n e s f

a iled to es t abl i s hed a l i kel i hood of det ent i on and t or tur e on the r ecor d befor e the age ncyunder ei thers t andar d. T he I J r el i ed on s ever al fac t or s i n det erm i ni ng thatJ ones w as l i kel yt o be det ai ned and t or tur ed upon hi s arr i val i n N i ger i a, i ncl udi ng evi dence thatJ ones w as c o n v icte d o f

a c rim e in th e U n ited S tate s, th a t f o re ig n c rim e s a re h e ld p ro se c u tab le o f f e n se s u n d e r N ig e ria n law , an d th a t th e re is a w id e sp re a d u se o f to rtu re in N ig e ria to gai n confe s s i ons of thos e ac cus ed of c r i m es . I n l i ghtof the r ecor d befor e the B I A and the IJ’s de tai led o p inion , w e w il l r em an d to the B IA so that itca n ap p lythe p rop er stan d ard of r evi ew . I n doi ng s o, i tm us texpl ai n w hythe I J ’ s deci s i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous on the fac t s orerr ed as a mat t erof l aw , i f i ts o hol ds . B eca us e w e do notaddr es s the under l y i ng

### 6

fac t s i n thi s cas e, w e nee d notaddr es s the new evi dence pr es ent ed byJ ones ; w e l eave t hat i s s ue t o the B I A on r emand. T h e G o v ern m en t argu es th at a rem an d w o u ld b e f u ti le i n li g h t of

this co u rt ’s deci s i on i n A ugus t e v. R i dge , 3 9 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Jo n e s c o u n ter s th a t A u g u ste is i nappos i t e bec aus e A ugus t e hel d t hatdepl or abl e pr i s on condi t i ons al one do notr i s e t o t he l evel of t or tur e w her eas her e J ones ar gued thathe w oul d be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e bypr i s on offi ci al s fort he purpos e of e xt r act i ng a conf es s i on. W e agr ee thatthe A u g u ste d e c isio n is in a p p lica b le. M o re o v e r, th e B IA d id n o t d e c id e w h e th e r w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n to Jo n e s if he w er e det ai ned i n N i ger i a r i s es t o the l evel of t or tur e bec aus e i tfound, empl oy i ng a now in c o rr e c t s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w , th a t it w a s u n lik e ly th a t J o n e s w o u ld b e d e ta in e d a t a ll. B eca us e the B I A appl i ed the i ncorr ects t andar d of r evi ew w i t h r es pectt o t he l i kel i hood of t or tur e, r el evantt o bot h bas es forC A T pr ot ect i on, w e nee d notr es ol ve w h e th e r Jo n e s’ c o n v ictio n c o n stitu tes a p a rticu lar lyse rio u s c rim e re n d e rin g h im in e lig ib le forC A T w i t hhol di ng. III . Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h, w e r emand t hi s m at t ert o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s forr econs i der at i on i n l i ghtof thi s cour t ’ s deci s i on i n Kapl un v. A t t ’ y G en. , 602 F .3 d 2 6 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ).