2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-10-2007 

# C o s t a v . Att y Ge n U S A 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 . 06-1386

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : 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_2007

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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e 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 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 a t ion " C os t a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 111. 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_2007/111NOT 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. 06- 1386

__________ GI L S ON C OS T A,

P et i t i oner , vs. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent .

__________ O n Pet i t i on for R evi ew of a Fi nal D eci s i on o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 73- 171- 992 Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H e n ry S . D o g in

__________ Subm i t t ed on N ovember 28, 2007

___________ B efore: B A R R Y , F U E N T E S and G A R T H , C i rcui t Judg es,

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber 10, 2007)

___________ OP I NI ON

__________-2-

G A R T H , C i r cui tJudge : G i l s on C os t a ( “C os t a”) pet i t i ons t hi s C our t for r evi ew of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ” or “B oar d”) or der of D ece m ber 30, 2005 aff i r m i ng t he N ovember 22, 2004 deci s i on of t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng C os t a’ s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval and hi s r eques t for vol unt ar y depar t ur e. C os t a cont ends t hat t he B IA a n d IJ e rre d in h o ld in g th a t h e lac k e d g o o d m o ra l ch a ra c ter b y re a so n o f C o sta h a v in g g iv e n f

a lse tes tim o n y , b e c a u se h e c o rre c ted h is p rio r in a c c u ra te s tate m e n ts vol unt ar i l y and p rio r to ex p o su re b y th e g o v ern m en t. W e agr ee a nd t her efor e rem an dto th e B IA f o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s to d eterm in e w h eth er C o sta’s d ep o rtatio n w o u ld c ons t i t ut e e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p t o hi s wi fe and two c hi l dr e n and w h eth er h e co n sequ en tly

is elig ib le f

o r can cellatio n o f

rem o v al u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 12 29 b(b)(1).

I. A nat i ve of Bra zi l and bor n on A pr i l 13, 1947, G i l s on C os t a ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es on A pr i l 5, 1992 o n a six -m o n th n o n -imm ig ran t v isa. H av in g o v erstay edth e v isa pe r i od wi thout

a uthor i z at i on, Cos t afi l e d at i m e l y a ppl i c a t i on for

a s yl um on Oc t obe r

18, 19 93 with the I mm igrati on and N at ural iz at ion S er

vice (“ INS”). Co st a was summ on edI t

i s u n c l e ar

f r o m th e r e c o r dw h y C o s t a ’ s a s yl u m i n t e rv i e w o c c u rr e dn e ar l y te n 1 yea rs a ft e r

hi s a ppl i c at i on. -3- fo r an a s yl um

i nt e rvi e w o n J anu ary

30 , 20 03 , a t

wh i c h h e a

pp e ar e d w i tho ut

c ouns e l . At

1 the i nt e rvi e w, he s t at e d that he wa s ahom os e xua l and tha t hi s s e xua l or i e nt a t i on wa s the ba s i s for hi s a s yl um

a ppl i c at i on. The a s yl um

offi c e r de ni e d the a

ppl i c a t i on, on the gr ounds that

Cos t afa i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a c t ua l pa s t pe r s e c ut i on or

awe l l - founde d fe ar

of fu ture pers ec ution, and referr ed the c as e t o the im m igrati on ju dg e. On De c e m

be r 23, 2003, Cos t am arr i e d Soni aPa que t , al awful pe rm ane nt r e s i de nt with two childre n w ho ar e Am er ic an ci ti ze ns – all of wh om he has hel ped sup po rt

ever si nce Son ia ’s firs t husband(who was a ls o C osta ’s cl ose fri end) pass ed away from a heart a tt a c k i n 1993. The r e c or d a l s o s hows tha t Cos t abe gan l i vi ng wi th Soni aand the c hi l dr e n i n 2002. Upon obt a i ni ng c ouns e l , Cos t awi thdr e w hi s a s yl um a ppl i c a t i on and fi l e d wi th the im m igrati on court an app li cati on fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al or, i n the al te rnat ive, vo luntar y depart ure. Co st a c on te nd ed that he was e li gible for cancel lati on of re m ov al un der 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) , bec ause he had est abli shed pres ence in the Unite d S tate s fo r at l ea st

10 y ears , provided evidence showing that he had g oo d m oral char ac te r, had no cr im inal re cord, anddem on strate d that his depo rt at ion w ou ld consti tute exce ptional and e xtr e m e l y

unus ua l har ds hi p t o hi s wi fe and two c hi l dr e n. As part of his a pp li cati on fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al , Costa subm itte d o n O ct ob er-4-

28 , 200 4 an aff

idavit , s tati ng that

he was not and h ad never been a hom osexual andthat his s tate m ents du ri ng the a sylum inte rvie w w er e i ncorrec t. On the bas is of this vo luntar

y ad m issio n , th e IJ f

o u n dth at C o sta w as n o t a p erso n o f g o o dm o ral ch aracter –w h ich is re qu ir ed fo r c ance ll at ion o f rem ov al un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(B ) – beca use he had g iv en f alse testim o n y

f o r th e p u rp o se o f

o b tain in g a b en ef

it u n d er th e imm ig ratio n law s, i n v i ol a t i onof 8 U . S. C . § 1101( f) ( 6) . W i thout the fi ndi ng of l a c k of good m or a l c har a c t e r , the I Jobs e rve d Cos t aha d a s tr ong c a s e for

c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova l s i nc e the r e wa s e vi de nc e that hi s de port a t i on wo ul d c on s t i t

ut e e xc e pt i on a l ande xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p t o h i s wi fe andtwo ch ildren . T h e IJ n o tedth at:

He r e the y ha d afa the r , the fa the r

di e d. The y

we nt thr ough a tr e m e ndous tr aum a , e s pe c i a l l y Sonya( s i c ) . W ha t

I woul d be do ing again, i s i nducing g re at er tr aum a. Beca

use now they have an opport

uni ty t o ke e p Mr . Cos t ahe r e , I thi nk the tr aum athat

woul d r e s ul t

[fr om hi s de port a t i on] woul d be e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p. A- R at 36. Wi th re spec t t o the spec ific im pact on So nia, wh o h ad hers el f rece ntly been gr ant e d c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova l , the I Js t a t e d:

I reco g n ize th at sh e can p ickh erself up ag ain an dw o rkh ard . S h e’s a so lidp erso n . B u t ag ain , it’s alm o st lik e th e C h in ese wa t e r t ort ur e , whe r e you s ay

t o s om e one we gi ve i t

t o you, but we t ake i t

ba c k and tha t

woul d be t e rr i bl y

tr aum a t i c and that ’s wh y

the psychiatr is t’ s analy si s [concluded] that [Cos t a ’ s de port at i on] woul d be di ffi c ul t . I thi nk tha t , gi vi ng an dth en tak in g aw ay , w o u ldb e so terrib ly trau m atic th at [ it]-5- woul d r e s ul t

i n e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p. A- R at 36- 37. Howe ve r , the I Jde ni e d Cos t ac anc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l and vol unt ary de part ur e on the groun ds of

la ck of go odm oral char ac te r. On Decem ber 30, 20 05 , a

si ng le -m em

ber pane l of the Boar d of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s a dopt e d and a ffi rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on i n a pe r c ur i am or de r . Cos t afi l e d at i m e l y pe t i t i on for

r e vi e w wi th thi s Court

on J anuary

27, 2006. I n hi s pe t i t i on, Cos t aar gue s tha t the BI A e rr e d i n a ffi rm i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on beca use ( 1) he corre ct ed his pri or inac curate st at em ents vo luntar il y and p ri or to expo sure b y th e g o v ern m en t su ch th at th ey d idn o t co n stitu te f

alse testim o n y

an d(2 ) in an y

ev en t, s t a t e m e n t s m a d e i n an o n - a d v e r s ar i a l p r o c e e d i n g d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e t e s t i m o n y.

II. Be fo r e t ur ni ng t o the m e r i t s of

Co s t a ’ s c l a i m s , we m

us t de t e rm i ne wh e the r

we h av e j u risd ictio n to d o so . T h e A tto rn ey G en eral co n ten d s th at C o sta f ailedto ex h au st his a dm inis tr at ive r em edie s on these is sues by no t r ai si ng them

with the BIA. Res p. Br. at 14. Unde r

Thi r d Ci r c ui t

pr e c e de nt , e xhaus t i on of r e m e di e s r e qui r e s s ol e l y tha t the a l i e n r a i s e an i s s ue i n the not i c e of a ppe a l and doe s not

ne c e s s i t a t e any

furthe r br i e fi ng. B h iski v. A sh cro

ft , 373 F. 3d 363, 368- 69 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) . Cos t as a t i s fi e d thi s r e qui r e m e nt-6-

b y claim in g in th e N o tice o f A p p eal to th e B IA th at th e IJ’s “h o ld in g is in co rrect b ecau se

. . . [t]he res po nd ent volun tari ly and w it ho ut delay

re canted that

[p ri or inac curate ] t e s t i m ony . ” A- R at

22. Co nsequently , we have juris dict ion p ursuant t o 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2(a) , which conf er s e xc l us i ve jur i s di c t i on upon the c ourt s of a ppe a l s t o r e vi e w fi na l or de r s of de port a t i on, e xc l us i on, or

r e m ova l i s s ue d by

the Boar d. W he r e , a s he r e , the Boar d a dopt s the imm ig ratio n j u d g e’s d ecisio n an dad d s its o w n reaso n s, th is C o u rt rev iew s b o th d ecisio n s. Fadiga v . A t t y. G en . , 488 F. 3d 142, 153, n. 16 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) . Our s t a nda r d of re vie w f or quest i on s of

l a w i s d e no vo . Id. a t

153- 54. W e r e vi e w fi ndi ngs of fa c t for sub stan tial ev id en ce an d , th eref o re, m ay n o t set th em

asid e u n less a reaso n ab le factf in d er w o u ldb e co m

p elledto f

in dto th e co n trary . Gabuni y a v . At t y . Ge n. , 463 F. 3d 316, 32 1 (3dCir. 20 06 ).

III. A. Th e m ai n q uest ion in this a pp ea l i s whether

inac curate st at em ents prov ided un der oa th dur i ng an a s yl um

i nt e rvi e w c ons t i t

ut e fa l s e t e s t i m ony

for pur pos e s of e s t abl i s hi ng an al ie n’s l ac k o f g oo d m oral char ac te r und er 8 U . S. C . § 1101( f) ( 6) , e ven tho ug h they w ere v o lu n tarily

co rrectedb y

th e alien p rio r to an y

ex p o su re b y

th e g o v ern m en t. Cos t aar gue s that

the i mm i gr a t i on judge and the BI A e rr e d i n hol di ng tha t he8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (f ) sets f o rth , in relev an t p art, th at: 2

. . . No p er son shall be re garded as, or fo un d to b e, a per son o f g oo d m oral -7- la cked go odm oral char ac te r by prov iding f

al se te st im on y

beca use this s tatutory

bar does not a ppl y whe n the a l i e n “ vol unt ar i l y and pr i or t o any e xpos ur e of the a tt e m

pt e d fr aud c orr e c t s . . . hi s t e s t i m ony . ” Pe t . Br . a t 11 ( quot i ng M

a tter o f M , 9 I & N D ec . 118 (BIA 1960) . Cos t anot e s that

he “ m a de thi s vol unt ary

a dm i s s i on be for e hi s he ar i ng on the m e r i t s i n the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ng tha t fol l owe d the a s yl um

i nt e rvi e w, a dm i tt i ng, wi thout reserv atio n , m

u ch less p ro m

p tin g f ro m th e g o v ern m en t, th at h e h adn o t to ldth e tru th in his a sylum

inte rvie w.” Pet . Br. at

11 -12. Th e Att orney

General re spon ds that

Co st a’ s c orr e c t i on of hi s pr i or

s t at e m e nt s wa s “ unt i m e l y” s i nc e i t di d not oc c ur be for e the a s yl um offi c e r but i ns t e a d be for e the i mm i gr a t i on judge . Re s p. Br . a t 14. Mo re ov er , Costa

ar gu es that

the s tate m ents prov ided du ri ng an as ylum inte rvie w do no t c on st it

ute “ te st im on y” bec ause they ar e “ oral re spon se s t o n on -a dv er sari al qu estio n s in an asylu m

in terv iew , w h ere th e g o v ern m en t is n o t rep resen tedb y cro sse xam i ni ng c ouns e l . ” Pe t . Br . at 14. Cos t a ’ s s t a t e m e nt s unde r oa th dur i ng the a s yl um inte rvie w con st it

uted te st im on y

un der the st at

ute.

B. A s to th e qu estio n w h eth er C o sta g av e f alse testim o n y , th e B IA h as rep eated ly h eldth at 8 U . S. C . § 1101( f) ( 6) does not bar a per s on fr om es t abl i s hi ng good m or al 2c har a c t e r who, dur i ng the pe r i od for whi c h good m or a l c har a c t e r i s r e qui r e d t o be estab lish ed , is, o r w as –. . . (6 ) o n e w h o h as g iv en f alse testim o n y

f o r th e p u rp o se o f o b tain in g an y

b en ef its u n d er th is ch ap ter. . . .

-8- char act er w hen he ha s “vol unt ar i l y and pr i or t o anyexpos ur e of t he at t empt ed fr aud cor r ect ed hi s t es t i m ony . ” Ma tter o f M , 9 I & N D ec. 118, 119 ( B I A 1960) . Si m i l ar l y , t he B IA has “ held that

wh er e an ali en, i n an imm igrati on proceedi ng , t es ti fies fals el y un der o ath as to a m aterial f

act, b u t v o lu n tarily

an dw ith o u t p rio r ex p o su re o f h is f alse testim o n y , co m es f

o rw ardan dco rrects h is testim o n y , p erj u ry h as n o t b een co mm itted .” S ee a lso Ma tt er o

f R -R , 3 I & N . D ec. 823, 825 ( B I A 1949) . We n o te th at th e f

acts in th is case are n o t in d isp u te. C o sta p ro v id edin accu rate statem en ts u n d er o ath du rin g an asylu m in terv iew o n Jan u ary

3 0 , 2 0 0 3 . B ef

o re th e f irst f u ll h earin g o n th e m erits b ef o re an imm ig ratio n j u d g e o n N o v em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , C o sta c orr e c t e d the s e s t at e m e nt s i n as worn a ffi davi t s ubm i tt e d on Oc t obe r

28, 2004. I nde e d, th ere is n o th in g in th e reco rdan dn o alleg atio n su g g estin g th at th e in accu racy o f th ese st at em ents wo uld h ave been re veal ed by the gov er

nm ent witho ut Co st a’ s volun tary adm is si on . Con se qu entl y , bas ed on the a pp li ca ble BIA do ctri ne, we hold that Costa ’s inac curate st at em ents to the a sylum of fice r did no t c on st it

ute “ fals e t es ti m on y” und er 8 U. S. C. § 1101( f) ( 6) be c aus e he c orr e c t e d the m vol unt ar i l y

and pr i or t o any e xpos ur e by th e g o v ern m en t. C. Good m or a l c har a c t e r

i s onl y one of four

e l e m e nt s ne c e s s ary

for c anc e l l a t i on of-9-

rem o v al u n d er 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ), w h ich p ro v id es th at:

T h e A tto rn ey

G en eral m ay

can cel rem o v al o f

, an dad j u st to the s t at us of an a l i e n l awful l y

a dm i tt e d for

pe rm ane nt r e s i de nc e , an a l i e n who i s i na dm i s s i bl e or de port abl e fr om

the Uni t e d St at e s i f the a l i e n – (A) has been ph y si ca ll y

pres ent i n the Un it ed Stat es fo r a co n tin u o u s p erio do f

n o t less th an 1 0 y ears imm ed iately pr e c e di ng the da t e of s uc h a ppl i c a t i on; (B) has been a pers on of

go odm oral char ac te r during such pe r i od; ( C) ha s not

be e n c onvi c t e d of an offe ns e unde r s e c t i on 1 1 8 2 (a)(2 ), 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 ), o r 1 2 2 7 (a)(3 ) o f th is title, sub

j ect to par a gr a ph ( 5) ; and ( D) e s t abl i s he s that

r e m ova l woul d r e s ul t

i n e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p t o the a l i e n’ s s pous e , par e nt , or chil d, wh o is a

ci ti ze n o f the Un it ed Stat es or an al ie n lawf ully adm itte d f

or perm anent r es idence . T h e IJ f o u n dth at C o sta satisf

iedth e f irst an dth irdelem en ts, b u t n o t th e seco n d , an dso di d not r e a c h the i s s ue of whe the r Cos t a ’ s de port a t i on woul d c ons t i t ut e e xc e pt i ona l and e xtr e m e l y unus ua l har ds hi p t o hi s wi fe and two c hi l dr e n. Si nc e we have no jur i s di c t i on t o de t e rm i ne e l i gi bi l i ty

for c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova l unde r the s t a t ut e , we m us t r e m and the case f o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s. IV . We ho ld that

the BIA and the IJer

re d in f inding that

Co st a l ac ked g oo d m oral ch aracter. We th eref

o re rem an df

o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s co n sisten t w ith th is O p in io n to d eterm in e w h eth er C o sta’s d ep o rtatio n w o u ldco n stitu te ex cep tio n al an dex trem ely-10-

unus ua l har ds hi p t o hi s wi fe and two c hi l dr e n and whe the r he i s thus e l i gi bl e for cancel lati on of

re m ov al un der 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b)( 1).