2003 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 9-26-2003 

# W i l li a ms v . D i s t D ir IN S 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 . 02-2443

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork 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_2003

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 2003 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
" W i l l i a m s v . Di s t Dir I N S " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 251. 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_2003/251* Sitting b y design ation: C ynthia H . Hall, C ircuit Jud ge, U .S.C.A ., Ninth Circu it. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ 02-2443

____________ 

### WORGOR WILLIAMS, Appellant
v. ANDREA J . QUARANTILLO, DISTRI CT DIREC TOR FOR INS

____________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________ (D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-00119) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Kathari ne S. Hayden

Argued: June 16, 2003
Befor e: ALITO, ROTH, and HALL, * Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: Septe mber 26, 2003)

____________________ OPI NION

____________________2 Maria Torres, Esq. (Argued) 1594 Metropolit an Avenue #4B Bronx, New York 10462 Zachary Margulis- Ohnuma (Argued) Hafetz & Necheles 500 Fifth Avenue 29 th Floor New Y ork, New York 10110 Counsel for Appell ant Michael P. Li ndeman (Argued) Assist ant Direc tor Christ opher C. Full er Senior Lit

igati on Counsel Office of Immigrat

ion Litigati on Civil Divi sion U.S. Department

of Justi ce P.O. Box 878, Ben Frankl in Secti on Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Appell ee 

### PER CURIAM : This is an appeal fr om a Distri ct Court order deny ing a petiti on for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner, Worgor Willi ams, a native and ci tize n of Ghana, arri ved in the United States as st owaway and asserts ri ghts under Articl e III of the United Nati ons Convention Agains t Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degradi ng Treatment or

Punishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, G.A.Res. 39/46, 39 th Ses s. , U. N.G. A.O. R. Supp. No. 51 at 197, U.N. Doc. A./39/ 51 (1984). Because we write for the benefi t of the par ties, th e ba ckg rou nd o f the cas e is n ot se t ou t.3

1. A lthoug h the g over nm ent co ntend s that the Distric t Cou rt lacks ju risdiction to entert ain the habeas petiti on, our Court ’s rec ent deci sion i n Ogbudimkpa v. Ashcroft , 200 3 W L 2 199 530 3, (3 d C ir., A ug. 2 2, 20 03) , for eclo ses th at arg um ent. 2. The peti tioner

contends t

hat he had a cons tit

utionalright

to due proce ss in t

he administrati ve proceedings and that this ri ght was violated. The respondent argues, however, that “[a] s an unadmitted ali en in immigr ation pr oceedings, [Willi ams had] no protect ion from the Constit

ution .
. . . ” Respondent’s Br. at 26. Assuming for

the sake of
ar gum en t t

ha t t he pe ti ti one r h ad due pr oc es s rig ht s i n the ad mi ni st ra ti ve pr oc ee di ngs , w e hold, for essentiall y the reasons set out in the opi nion of the Distri ct Court t hat “al l due process requirement s were met. ” Dist. Op. at 10. In Cho ng v . D is tric t Dire ct or , I NS , 264 F.3d 378, 386 ( 3d Cir. 2001) , which concerned removal pr oceedings a gainst a permanent resi dent al ien, we stated t hat due proc ess required that the al ien “(1) be enti tled to fact finding ba sed on a recor d produced before the board a nd discl osed to her ; (2) be all owed to make arguments on her own behalf; and (3) have t he right to an indi viduali zed determi nation of

her interest s.” See also Abdulai v. Ashcroft , 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 2001). I n this case, t

he peti tioner

was given allof those rights . We have considered all of the petiti oner’s arguments, but assumi ng arguendo that t he peti tioner

possesse d due pro ces s righ ts, all o f tho se rig hts w ere o bse rve d. 3. We have considered all of the petiti oner’s remaining ar guments, a nd find no ground for r eversi ng the deci sion of the District Court . We note that both t he4

Immigration Judge and t he Board of Immigration appeal s found that the petiti oner had not satisfi ed his bur den of showing that he is l ikely

to be tor tured i f returned to Ghana and that t he D istrict Co urt f oun d th at thi s co nclu sion wa s su ppo rted by sub stan tial ev iden ce. See J.A . 20- 21, 1 00, 1 03- 111
. For the r easons set

out above, the order

of the Dist

rict Court deny ing the pe tition for a writ

of habeas corpus is affi rmed.