2006 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 5-5-2006 

# Y a d a v 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 . 05-1008

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " Y a d a v v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1155. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1155NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 . 05- 1008 AJ AY YAD AV, Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

O n P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

a n O rd e r 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 97- 441- 230 I m m i gr at i on J udge: H on. M i r l ande Ti dal Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 25, 2006 B E F O R E : F U E N T E S , S T A P L E T O N a n d A L A R C O N ,*

C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed M ay5, 2006)

* H on. A r thurL . A l ar con, Seni orU ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

### Uni t e d Nat i ons Conve nt i on Aga i ns t Tort ur e and Othe r

Cr ue l , I nhum an or 1 

### D eg rad in g T reatm ent o r P un ishm ent, D ec. 1 0 , 1 9 8 4 , 1 4 6 5 U .N .T .S . 8 5 , im p lem entedin theUn i t e d S t at e s by

theFo r e i gnAf

fa i r s Re fo r

m andRe s tr

uc t uri ngAc t of 19 98 , Pub. L. No. 105- 277, § 2242, 112 St at . 2681- 761 ( c odi fi e d at 8 U. S. C. § 1231) . Ya dav ha s not ad dressedh is entitlem ent to relief un d er th e C A T inh is b rief in g . A cco rd in g ly , th at claim is w aiv ed . 2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: Pet i t i onerA

j ayY adav ( “Y adav” ) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng an i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s ( “I J ”’ s ) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on pur s uantt o the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (“C A T ”). 1 Y adav i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of N epal . H e i s a mem berof a pr om i nentand w eal thyfami l yi n hi s hom e vi l l age of M ahani y a. H e t es t i fi ed thati n J anuary2004, M aoi s tr ebel s arr i ved athi s hom e and de m anded 200, 000 rupees . Y adav r efus ed and the r ebel s thr eat ened hi m w i th death. T w o day s aft erthi s i nci dent , the M aoi s tr ebel s r etur ned to h is h o m e to lo o k f

o r Y a d a v , b u t Y a d a v w a s n o t th e re . T h e re b e ls a g a in th re a ten e d to k ill Y a d a v a n d le f

t. Y a d a v f

le d th e to w n a n d u ltim a te ly ar ri v e d in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h e I J d e n i e d Ya d a v ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d CA T

### 3

pr ot ect i on. T he I J found thatY adav ha d notm ethi s bur den of pr oof t o s how thathe had b e e n p e rs e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f o n e o f th e f iv e g ro u n d s e n u m e ra te d in 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . R ather , the I J found thatthe M aoi s tr ebel s had t ar get ed Y adav f or e x to rt io n b e c a u s e o f

Y a d a v ’s w e a lth . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on and Y adav f i l ed a pe t i t i on for re v ie w in th is C o u rt . W hen the B I A i s s ues an af fi r m ance w i thoutopi ni on, as i tdi d her e, w e r evi ew t he IJ ’s o p in io n a s th e d e c is io n o f th e a g e n c y . Sm riko v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 20 04 ). W e revi ew i t s l egal det erm i nati on s de novo , s ubj ectt o es t abl i s hed pr i nci pl es of d e f e re n c e . Id . W e revi ew the ag ency ’s fi nd i ng s of fact for s ub st anti al evidence an d ask w hethera r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake the fi ndi ng on the bas i s of the admi ni s tr at i ve re c o rd . D ia v . A sh c ro

ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e mayonl yoverturn fac tual fi ndi ngs i f “a nyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 4 )( B ). “[T ]o be el i gibl e for asy l um i n the U nit ed S t at es as a r efug ee, an ali en m ust demonstr at e ‘ per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ’ ” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 4 2 F .3 d 4 7 7 , 4 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ) . “The w el l - founded f ears t andar d has a s ubj ect i ve and a n obj ect i ve c o m p o n e n t. T h e a lien m u st s h o w th a t ‘h e h a s a su b jec tiv e f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n th a t is

### 4

s uppor t ed byobj ect i ve evi dence thatper s ecut i on i s a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i ty . ’ ” B alas ubr am anr i m v. I

. N . S. , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). S im ilarly , to b e e lig ib le f o r “ w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l” a n a lien m u st d e m o n stra te th a t itis

“ m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t ” th a th e w i l l b e p e r s e c u t e d u p o n r e tu rn i n g t o h i s h o m e c o u n try. I . N . S. v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 (1 9 8 7 ). T h e “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” stan d ard fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al i s m o re stri n g en t th an the “ w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar” s ta n d a rd re q u ir e d f

o r a s y lu m . J

a n u s i a k v . I NS , 9 4 7 F .2 d 4 6 , 4 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Y adav a r gues that , contr aryt o the I J ’ s fi ndi ng, he w as t ar get ed forext or t i on and thr eat s byM aoi s tr ebel s on acc ountof i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on and/ ori m put ed s oci al gr oup. I n part i cul ar , Y adav a r gues thatthe M aoi s tr ebel s t ar get ed hi m beca us e they im p u ted to Y a d a v , b a se d o n Y a d a v ’s w e a lth a n d sta n d in g in th e c o m m u n ity , an a n tiM aoi s tcapi t al i s tpol i t i cal opi ni on, as w el l as m ember s hi p i n a s oci al gr oup cons i s t i ng of

“ w e a lth yla n d o w n e r[ s ] w ith s o c ia l in f lu e n c e in th e c o m m u n ity.” P e tr .’s B r. 1 3 . T h e IJ’ s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e re b e ls ta rg e ted Y a d a v m e re lyb e c a u se o f h is w e a lth is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . In d e e d , v e ry little in th e re c o rd s u g g e s ts o th e rw is e . W hil e i ti s perhaps plausi ble that the rebels beli eved Y adav t o h old ant i -M aois tcapit al i st vi ew s i n l i ghtof Y adav’ s w eal th, i tw as emi nent l yr eas onabl e forthe I J t o concl ude, b a se d o n Y a d a v ’s te stim o n y , tha t th e re b e ls d e m a n d e d m o n e yf ro m Y a d a v m e re ly beca us e theybel i eved hi m t o have money . M or eover , the “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” Y adav i dent i fi es , w eal thyl andow ner s w i th s oci al i nfl uence , i s nota “s oci al gr oup” underour

### 5

p ri o r c a s e la w . S e e L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (acc ep ti n g ’s B I A ’ s cons truct i on of “pa r t i cul ars oci al gr oup” t o r efe rt o “a gr oup of per s ons al l of w h o m s h a re a c o m m o n , im m u ta b le c h a ra c te ri s tic ” ). A ccor di ngl y , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s concl us i on thatY adav w as not su b jec t to p a st p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a p ro tec ted g ro u n d a n d d id n o t h a v e a w e llfounded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. I tfol l ow s thatY adav i s i nel i gi bl e foras y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T h e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w w ill b e d e n ie d .