# Un ited States Co urt o f Ap peals F orth e Se ve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604
Argued June 3, 2010 Dec ided August 10, 2010

Before Hon. Danie l A. Manion, Circuit Judge Hon. Ter ence T. Evans, Circuit Judge Hon. Diane S. Sy

kes, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3255 J ean Ma rie Via nney Mudahiny

uka, Petitioner ,

v. Eric H. Holder, J r., Att orney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Respondent

. On Petition for Review of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls A078-782-984

O R D E R The De partment of H omeland Secur ity deter mined that J ean Ma

rie Via nney Mudahiny

uka, a na tive of Rwanda , was subjec t to ex pedited re moval proce eding s beca use he ha d NO NP RE CE DE NT IA L D ISP OSIT ION T o b e c ite d o nly

in a c c or da

nc e wi th F ed. R. App. P

. 32. 1No. 09-3255 Pag e 2

committed an ag g ravated fe lony afte r his admission to the United States. He then a pplied for wi th h o l d i n g o f r em o v al an d p ro t ec t i o nun d er

th e C o n v en t i o nAga i n s tT o rt ure . Fo l l o wi n g a he ari ng , a n immig ratio n ju dg e de nie d th e a pp lic a tio ns , a

nd the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls dismiss ed Mudahiny

uka’s a ppeal. Muda

hiny uka petitions for re view of the Boa rd’s de cision. For the re asons that follow, we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part for wa nt of jurisdiction. I. In September 2000, Muda hiny uka, a native and citizen of Rwanda , was a dmitted to the United States as a r efug ee by using the alias Thier

ry Ruga mba and c laiming to be a victim of the 1994 Rwandan g enocide . Over three y ear s later, the D epar tment of Homeland Sec urity (“D HS”) discovere d Mudahiny

uka’s true identity

and that the Rwa

ndan g overnme nt had issued a wa rra nt for his ar rest on cha

rg es of g enocide and cr imes ag ainst humanity . A cr iminal complaint was filed, and immig ration off icer s arr ested him in May 2004. He plea ded guilty to four cha

rg es: (1) evadingthe immigration laws by appea ringunder a

n assumed or f

ictitious name while applying for a dmission, (2) knowingly making false statements under oath with respec t to a materia l fac t in an application, (3) knowing ly making a mater ially

false, f ictitious, or fraudulent state ment in a matte r w ith in t

he jur isd ic tio n o f t

he e xec uti ve br anc h o f t

he Go ve rnme nt o f t

he Un ite d St a te s, and (4) forc ibly

assaulting and re sisting fe dera l immi g ration off icer s eng ag ed in offic ial duties us inga de a dly we a po n a nd inf lic tin g bo dil y

inj ur y . ( Th e a ssa

ult c ha rg e aro se fr om t

he e ve nts surr ound inghis arr e st i n M ay 20 04 .) Th e dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d h im t o 5 1 mo nth s’ imprisonment. DHS revoke d Mudahiny

uka’s r efug ee status beca

use he w as inelig ible for r efug ee status at the time of his admission and deter mined that he wa s amena ble to expedited removal proce eding s under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2)( A)(iii) be cause he had be en convic ted of a n ag g ravated felony . The a g ency

then issued a f

inal administrative orde r that he be remove d to Rwanda. B ut be fo re he c ou ld b e re mov e d, Mu da hiny uk a ind ic a te d th a t he fe ars pe rs e c uti on and tor tur e if re tur ne d to Rw and a

be c a us e he ha s b e e n a c c us e d o f p art ic ipatin g in t he g e no c ide . H is c la ims wer e re fer

red to a n asylum officer

to determine whether

he should be a llowed to apply for withholding of r emoval and pr otection under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . The a sylum of fi c e r d e te rm ine d th e re wa s a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

Mu da hiny uk a wo uld be su bje c t to perse cution or torture in Rwanda a nd ref err ed the c ase to a

n immigration judge ( “I J ”). Mudahiny

uka then a

pplied for withholding of re moval and prote ction under the CAT. Over the cour se of se vera l hear ings be fore an I J , Mudahiny uka pre sented va

rious testimonial and documentar y evidenc e in support of his claims, the re levant par ts of which we now re count. He a dmitted being a member of

the National Republica

n Movement for Democr acy

and De velopment (“ MRND”), the ruling Hutu political party at the time of the g enocide , and ser

ving a s a lea der f

or the Intera

hamwe, the MNRD’s youth mili tia. But heNo. 09-3255 Pag e 3

claimed he withdrew f

rom the MNRD whe n the g enocide of Tutsis beg an and de nied participating in it. He sa id he fe ars he will be perse cuted or tortured if he returns to Rwanda beca use the c urre nt gove rnment wrong ly believes he , as a f

ormer MRND le ader , took part in the g enocide

. Mudahiny

uka and his wife also testified about his May 2004 arr est. They

aver red that they awoke to five ar

med offic ers ba

rg ing into their be droom and ha ndcuff ing the m. They denied that he resisted a

rre st, touched the off

icer s’ wea

pons, and that any

of the off icer s were injured. Mu da hiny uk a so ug ht t o h ave Rw and an r e fu g e e No e l T wa g ir amun g u, a do c tor a l c and idate in international re lations and human rig hts at Tufts University and a le cture r at Ha

rvar d University

on g enocide , desig nated a s an expert on the Rwanda n g enocide and judicial sy stem. Twag iramungu had pre viously serve d as an obse rver

of the g aca ca c ourts—tribunals set up by Rwanda to a djudicate the thousa nds of g enocide prosec utions—and written a maste r’s thesis on the subject. He opined that Rwanda n courts do not meet inter national standar ds of justice and that Mudahiny

uka would not re ceive a fa ir trial there if prosec uted for his purpor ted involvement in the g enocide . He a lso testified that prison conditions in Rwanda are g ener ally

poor, that po lit ic a l pr iso ne rs are mor e lik e ly to b e tor tur e d th an o the r p ri so ne rs , a nd that th e re is a

n e ig hty perc ent cha

nce Muda hiny uka will be torture d if remove d to Rwanda. The e vidence prese nted by the g overnme nt painted a ve ry differ ent picture . I t offer ed documentar

y evidenc e of the international a rre st warr ant for Muda

hiny uka and the seven- count ind ic tme nt i ssu e d b y

the Rw and an g ov e rnme nt c ha rg inghim wi th g e no c ide and

c ri me s a g a ins t humanity . I t also prese nted seve ral witness stateme nts and repor ts directly implicating Mudahiny

uka (a lso known as “Z uzu”) in the g enocide

. The g overnme nt also elicited the testimony of immigra

tion ag ents Gre g ory

Carpente r and J ohn St. J ohn, two of the off icer s who arr ested Mudahiny uka in May

2004. Carpente r stated that duringthe ar

rest, Mudahiny

uka tried to take his shotgun and, in the pr ocess, struc k him in the fore head w ith the weapon, br eakinghis gla sses and lea ving a g ash that re quired medic al attention. St. J ohn g ave a simil ar a ccount a

nd stated that, in attempting to subdue Mudahiny uka, he suff ere d lace rations on his hand and a broken f inge r that nec essitated six wee ks of phy sical thera py . Professor William S chaba s, profe ssor of human r ights lawat the Na tional University

of Irela nd, also testified on the g overnme nt’s behalf . He opined that the Rwandan c ourt in which Mudahiny

uka would be tr ied has fa ir-trial a nd rig ht-to-counse l gua

rante es, that Mudahiny

uka would not have trouble finding fre e leg al re prese ntation, that prison conditions are a dequate and improving, that torture and a buse of pr isoners is rar e and not toler ated by the Rwanda

n g overnme nt, and that Mudahiny uka is very

unlikely to be tortured if

remove d.No. 09-3255 Pag e 4

At the conc lusion of the hear ings, the I J denied Muda hiny uka’s a pplications for re lief. The I J held that Mudahiny uka is statutorily

ineligible f

or withholding of

remova l under the I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natio na lity

Ac t be c a us e his c onvic tio n f

or a ssa ult ingfe de ra l of

fi c e rs wa s a “par ticularly serious cr ime.” Alter

natively , the I J conclude d that Mudahiny uka is barr ed fr om relief under the Act bec ause he participated in the per secution of Tutsis in the 1994 g enocide

. The I J further

held that eve n if the two statutory bars did not apply , Mudahiny uka wa s not e nti tle d to wi thh old ingof re mov a l un de r t

he Ac t f or the same re a so ns the I J wa s d e nyinghis claims under the CAT. Con c e rn ingMu da

hiny uk a ’s c la im f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l un de r t

he CA T, the I J hel d that the par

ticularly -ser ious-crime ba r also pre cluded r elief unde r that provision. The I J then considere d Mudahiny

uka’s r equest for

defe rra l of remova l under the CAT a nd deter mined that he h a d f a i l e d t o d e m o n s tr a t e i ti s m o r e l i k e l y th ann o th e w i l l b e t o rtur e d i f r e m o v e d t o Rw an d a . In re a c hin g that c on c lus ion , th e I J re fu se d to re c og nize Tw a g ir amun g u a s a n e xpe rt be c a us e his opinions did not meet the standa rds for e x pert testimony

established in Daubert v. M errell Dow Pharmace uticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The I J noted that althoug h Twag iramungu had ob se rv e d n a tio na l and

g a c a c a Rw and an c ourt s, he ha d n ot p ub lis he d a ny art ic le s o n th e su

bje c ts except for a

master’ s thesis a few

y ear s ear lier. In addition, in concluding Twag iramungu’s testimony had limited probative va lue, the I J thought it sig nificant that he had not observe d Rwandan c ourts for ove r five year s (2004), ha d not observed Rwa ndan prisons since O ctober 2003, cited no basis for

his conclusion that Mudahiny uka fa ces a

n eig hty perc ent cha

nce of tor tur e , a nd de ri ve d h is o pin ion s f

ro m se c on da

ry so ur c e s a nd so me c on ta c t w ith

re se arc he rs in Rwanda. Mu da hiny uk a a pp e a le d to the B oa

rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls. In d ism iss inghis a pp e a l, the B oard a g ree d with the I J ’s deter mination that Mudahiny

uka is statutorily

barr ed fr om wi thh old ingre lie f u

nd e r t he Ac t and

the CA T b e c a

us e his a ssa

ult on imm ig ra tio n o ff ic e rs wa s a particula rly serious cr ime. The B oard a lso determined that the r ecor d supported the I J ’s alternative conclusion that Mudahiny uka is inelig ible for withholding of re moval beca use he assisted in the 1994 perse cution of Tutsis. I n addition, it agr eed that Twag iramungu should not have be en re cog nized as an expert witness and he ld Mudahiny uka did not qualify

for de fer ral of re mov a l un de r t

he CA T b e c a

us e he ha d n ot p ro ve n h e wi ll m or e lik e ly tha n n ot b e tor

tur e d if remove d to Rwanda. Mudahiny uka petitions for re view of the Boa rd’s de cision. II. The B oard a dopted and suppleme nted the I J ’s dec ision, so we revie w the I J ’s dec ision as supplemented. Raghunathan v. Holder , 604 F.3d 371, 379 ( 7th Cir. 2010). But bef ore w e turn to the arguments Mudahiny uka adva nces in his petition, we addr ess our jurisdiction. Where, a s he re , th e Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l ha s d e te rm ine d a n a lie n is re mov a

ble un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 22 7( a )( 2) (A )( iii ) f

or havin g c omm itt e d a

n a g g ra vate d f e lony , 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( a )( 2) (C )No. 09-3255 Pag e 5

Be cause Mudahiny

uka has f ailed to succ essfully

challeng e t

h e Boa rd’s “ particula

rly serious 1 crime” deter

mination, we nee d not addre ss his arguments challeng ing its alter native holding (base d on 8 U

. S. C. § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i) ) th a t h e is in e li g ib le f o r w it h h o ld in g o f r e mo v a l b e c a u s e he participated in the per secution of Tutsis duringthe Rwanda n g enocide

. remove s our jurisdiction to review a final orde r of r emoval. Vaca-Tellez v . Mukase y , 540 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2008). B ut under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( D), we do reta in jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Mu da hiny uk a do e s n ot d isp ute that he c omm itt e d a n “ a g g ra vate d f e lony ” a s th a t te rm

is define d in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) . He instea d argues that the B oard e rre d in concludingthat he is ineligible for

withholding of r emoval under the Act a nd the CAT bec ause his convic tion on count four of

the indictment (assa

ulting fe dera l immi g ration off icer s using a

deadly wea pon and inflicting bodily

injury) wa s a “pa

rticularly serious cr ime” under

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)( B) (ii). More spe cifica lly , he take s issue with the Boa rd’s a naly sis of the 51-month sentenc e he r ece ived in the criminal ca se and its appor tionment of the imprisonment term to the assault count. B ut that is not a constitutional claim, nor is it a pure question of law in the same ve in as a “ challeng e[ ] t o the B I A’s interpr etation of a statute, regulation, or constitutional provision, [ a] claim[ ] that the B I A misread its own pre cede nt or applied the wrongleg al standar d, or [a] claim[ ] t hat the BIA fa iled to exercise discre tion at all.” Patel v. Holde r , 5 63 F .3 d 5 65 , 5 68 (7 th C ir . 2 00 9) . So try as he mig ht, Mudahiny

uka’s f ramingof the issue c annot turn the que stion int o one over which we ha ve jurisdiction. There fore , we must dismiss t hat portion of his petition for wa nt of jurisdiction. See P etrov v . Gonzales , 464 F.3d 800, 802 ( 7th Cir. 2006) (dismissi ng for lac k of jurisdiction petition challeng ing B oard’ s determination an a g g ravated fe lony was a lso a “par ticularly serious cr ime”). 1 Mudahiny

uka also a rgues that the B oard e rre d in denying his re quest for de fer ral of re mov a l un de r t

he CA T. He c on te nd s th a t th e B oa rd ’s de nia l w a s b a se d o n a le g a l e rr or , n ame ly improperly

applying a

stricter standa

rd than Da ub e rt in refusingto rec og nize Twag iramungu as an expert. That a

rgument is based in larg e par t on the I J ’s observation that Twag iramungu had not published any

article s on the Rwandan c ourts other than a master’ s thesis. (Tab 55.) Fe dera l ag encie s are not bound by the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence but only “the looser standard of

due proc ess of law .” Nia m v . A sh c ro ft , 3 54 F .3 d 6 52 , 6 59 (7 th C ir . 2 00 4) . So Da ub e rt , w hic h inte rp re ts F e de ra l Ru le of Ev ide nc e 70 2, te c hn ic a lly do e s n ot a

pp ly to administrative proc eeding s. Id. at 660. We have sa id, however , that the “spirit of Da ub e rt ” does a pp ly and op ine d th a t it

wo uld be od d f or an a g e nc y

to u se a sta nd ard fo r e xpe rt

te sti mony

that is more rig orous than Da ub e rt

. Id. In Niam , in gr anting a petition for r eview c halleng ing a n I J ’s summary exclusion of proffe red e x pert testimony , we a lso observed that “[t] here is no ironclad require ment that an ac ademic, to be qualified a s an expert witness, must publish academic books or ar ticles on the pre cise subjec t matter of he r testimony .” Id.No. 09-3255 Pag e 6

He re , co n trary

t o M u d ah i n y

u k a’ s p o rt ra y al , th e IJ d i d n o tco n cl u d e t h atT wa gi ra mun gu was unqua lified to testify as an e x pert solely

beca use he ha d not published any rec ent ar ticles. Tr ue , h e did me nti on that T wa g ir amun g u h a d n ot p ub lis he d a ny art ic le s o n th e Rw and an c ourt s lately . Under Da ub e rt , a witness’s publication recor d is certa inly a per tinent consideration. See 50 9 U .S. a t 59 4. B ut t

he I J did n ot t

re a t th a t f a c t a s d isp os iti ve ; he a lso c on sid e re d o the r f a c ts, including that Twag iramungu had not cited a ny authority for his opinion that Mudahiny uka fa ces an eig hty perc ent cha

nce of torture, ha d not rec ently

observe d Rwandan c ourts and prisons, and based his opinion on seconda ry source s and re sear cher s in Rwanda. Mudahiny uka take s issue with those bases, too: he c laims that the I J ’s appr oach te eter s on the slippery slope of re quiring disqualification of e x perts unless they have pe rsonally

observe d the re levant subjec t matter. Ag a in, c on tr ary

to M ud ahiny

uk a ’s po rt

ra y a l, t he I J did n ot a do pt a

pe r s e ru le that an e xpe rt mus t have obse rved the subject matter; r ather , the I J considere d the totality of Twa g iramungu’s e xpe ri e nc e to c on c lud e he wa s n ot q ua lif ie d a s a n e xpe rt . Wh ile Mu da

hiny uk a take s is su e wi th that c on c lus ion , o ur

jur isd ic tio n is lim ite d to the pure ly le g a l qu e sti on

of wh e the r t he I J er re d in a pp lyingan in a

pp ro pr iate sta

nd ard fo r e xpe rt

te sti mon y , w hic h h e did

no t. Mudahiny

uka’s se cond ar g ument perta ining to the de nial of his defe rra l of remova l reque st is that the I J , by

repe atedly

interruptinghis attorney ’s questioning of Twa g iramungu and eliciting mor e testimony

than his attorney

did, violated his due proce ss rig hts. W e ag ain re mind alien petitioners that statutory claims should be re solved befor e constitutional claims. Figueras v. Holder , 5 74 F .3 d 4 34 , 4 37 (7 th C ir . 2 00 9) . “ Al ie ns have a statut or y ri g ht t o a re a so na ble opportunity

to present e vidence in their favor , 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4) , and proc eeding s which comply with statutory

and re g ulatory

require ments also satisfy due proc ess.” Id. W h e th e r th e IJ violated this statutory

rig ht is a question of law we have jur isdiction to consider under § 1252(a) (2)( D). Id. We examine the totality of the c ircumstance s in assessing whether an alien had a r easona

ble opportunity

to present e vidence

. Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales , 422 F.3d 529, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) , Congr ess has a uthorized imm igr ation judge s to serve a s both decision maker s and prose cutors. Apouviepse akoda v. G onzales , 4 75 F .3 d 8 81 , 8 85 (7 th Cir . 2 00 7) . Immi g ratio n ju dg e s h ave br oa d d isc re tio n to c on tr ol t he int e rr og a tio n p ro c e ss i n order to discover the tr

uth, subject to the alien’s r ight to a f air he aring

. Id. A hea

ringis fair e ven when a n I J asks the majority

of questions and fr equently interrupts, as longas his g oal is to focus the testimony

and exclude irre levant evide nce. Id. at 887. Afte r our r eview of Twag iramungu’s testimony at the hea

ring , we a re satisfied that the I J ’s interruptions and sometimes a g g ressive qu e sti on ingwe re so de signe d a nd that Mu da

hiny uk a ha d a re a so na ble op po rt

un ity to e lic it testimony from Twa g iramungu. But e ven if the I J did cross the line a nd impede the pr esentation of evide nce, Muda

hiny uka has f ailed to show pre

judice bec ause he has not identified what evidenc e he w as unable to present. Rehman v . Gonzales , 441 F.3d 506, 509 ( 7th Cir. 2006). Mudahiny

uka’s va g ue prote st of not having been “ aff orded the rig ht to question his wit ness and elicit testimony

favor able to his position” does not suffice

. See id. Acc ording ly , we de ny theNo. 09-3255 Pag e 7

part of the petition raising c onstitut ional claims and pure question-of-la w issues conc erningthe Boa rd’s de fer ral of r emoval under

the CAT. III

. Th e po rt ion

of the pe tit ion

ra isi ngc on sti tut ion a l c la ims and pure qu e sti on s o f l aw i s D ENI ED . T he re ma ind e r i s D I S MI S S ED for wa nt of jurisdiction.