2008 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 6-27-2008 

# Mi soka 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 . 07-3404

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Mi s o ka v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 964. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/964NOT 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. 07- 3404

___________ E L I AS M I S OKA, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

_____________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 78- 829- 307) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

_____________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 12, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 27, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM E l i as M i s oka pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

M i soka, a nat i ve o f K eny a, w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es i n July19 98 as a stud en t. O n Jan u ary1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , M isok a w as c h arg ed as re m o v ab le fo r see k ing to p roc u re perm anentr es i dence byent er i ng i nt o a fr audul entm arr i age. T he governm entl at eradded a cha r ge thatM i s oka had f ai l ed t o compl yw i th the t erm s of hi s admi s s i on. M i s oka conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. H e ar gued thathe had be en att acke d i n K eny a bya r i val tr i be and thathi s U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen da ught erw oul d be s ubj ectt o femal e geni t al m ut i l at i on ( “FG M ”) i f he w er e r emoved t o K eny a. A ft era hea r i ng, the I m m i gr at i on Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) d e n ied re lief. A f ter th e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l, M iso k a f iled a tim e ly p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. M i s oka t es t i fi ed bef

or e the I J thati n 1992 the M as ai tr i be bega n t o burn hous es and s t eal thi ngs fr om hi s tr i be, the K i s i i . I n 1998, M i s oka w as beat en bythe M as ai ; t hey cuthi s hands , s pear ed hi s l eg, and s t ol e hi s m oney . M i s oka as s ert ed thatone br otherw as ki l l ed bythe M as ai and anotherw as s pear ed i n the l eg. H e s t at ed thati f he w er e r emoved t o K eny a, he w ou l d b e t arget ed b ecause p eop l e w i l l think he h as m on ey . H e al so co n tend ed that h e w o u ld n o t be a b le t o p rotec t his cit izen d au g h ter fro m F G M . M isok a’s w if e a lso tes tifie d a n d e c h o e d M iso k a ’s f e a rs th a t h e w o u ld b e tar g e ted a n d th a t th e ir d a u g h te r w o u ld b e f

o rc e d to u n d e rg o F G M . T he I J concl uded thatM i s oka had notal l eged thatany one as s oci at ed w i th the K eny an governm entw oul d t or tur e hi m orhi s chi l d. T he I J s t at ed thatther e w as no3

p re c e d e n t f

o r a p a re n t to c la im re lie f b a s e d o n a c la im th a t h is c h ild w o u ld b e to rt u re d . M or eover , the I J found nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e thatthe governm entw oul d have anyi nvol vementi n FG M beca us e i thad bee n banned i n K eny a. T he I J det erm i ned that M i s oka and hi s fami l ycoul d avoi d FG M and anydangerfr om the M as ai byr el ocat i ng w i thi n K eny a as hi s s i bl i ngs had done. T he I J s t at ed thatbei ng a pot ent i al t ar getfor ro b b e ry w o u ld n o t a m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n o n o n e o f th e e n u m e ra te d g ro u n d s . T he B I A adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T hus , w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of b o th th e IJ a n d th e B IA . J a rb o u g h v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 8 3 F .3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e re v iew th e B IA ’s f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s u n d e r th e su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd . D ia v . A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )(en b an c). T h e B IA ’s find ing s are c o n sid e re d c o n c lu siv e u n les s “ a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . W e exe r ci s e de novo r evi ew over the B I A ’ s l egal deci s i ons butaff or d defe r ence t o i t s r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i ons of the statu tes i t adm inist ers. T o u ssain t v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 5 5 F . 3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o b e e li g ible fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, M isok a m u st de m o n str ate tha t i t i s m o re l i kel ythan notthathi s l i fe w oul d be thr eat ened i n K eny a on ac countof 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. T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T o be el i gi bl e for reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re, M isok a m u st de m o n str ate tha t i t i s m o re li k elythan n o t th at he w o u ld b e torture d if rem o v ed to K en y a. 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2).4

I tappea r s fr om M i s oka’ s t es t i m onythatthe att acks bythe M as ai tr i be i nvol ved theftof pr opertyand w er e mot i vat ed byeconomi c r eas ons . “M er e gene r al i zed l aw l es s nes s and vi ol ence betw een di ver s e popul at i ons , of the s or tw hi ch abounds i n num er ous countr i es a n d in f licts m ise ryu p o n m ill io n s o f in n o c e n t p e o p le d a ilya ro u n d th e w o rld , g e n e ra llyis nots uffi ci entt o perm i tthe A t t orneyG ener al t o gr antas y l um . . . . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 9 4 -95 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )(qu o ti n g S ing h v . IN S , 1 3 4 F . 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 (9th C ir . 1998) ) . T he r ecor d does notcompel a fi ndi ng thatM i s oka w as orw i l l be per s ecut ed bas ed a pr ot ect ed gr ound orthathe w oul d be t or tur ed i f r eturned t o K eny a. M iso k a a lso se e k s d e riv a tiv e re lief b a se d o n th e th re a t o f

F G M h e a lleg e s h is daught erw oul d fac e i f he w er e r eturned t o K eny a. T w o C our t s of A ppeal s have he l d t hat a n a lien c a n n o t m a k e a c laim f o r re lief b a se d o n p o ten tial h a rm to a U .S . citize n c h ild if the par enti s r emoved. See N i ang v. G onzal es , 492 F. 3d 505 ( 4th C i r . 2007) ; O for j i v. A s hcr oft , 354 F. 3d 609, 618 ( 7th C i r . 2003) . M i s oka r el i es on A bebe v. G onzal es , 432 F .3 d 1 0 3 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )( e n b a n c ) a n d H a s s a n v . G o n z a le s , 4 8 4 F .3 d 5 1 3 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n A bebe, the C our tr emanded t he mat t ert o the B I A t o addr es s i n the fi r s ti ns t ance w hetherpar ent s m ayder i vat i vel yqual i fyforas y l um i f thei rci t i zen c hi l d i s l i kel yt o fac e per s ecut i on i n t he par ent s ’ nat i ve country . A bebe, 432 F. 3d at1043. I n H as s an, the al i en c o n ten d e d th a t h e r c iti z e n d a u g h ter s w o u ld b e su b jec t to F G M if

sh e w e re re tu rn e d to S o m a lia. T h e IJ d e n ied th e d e riv a tiv e c laim a n d n o ted th a t th e d a u g h ter s c o u ld re m a in in the U ni t ed St at es w i th t hei rfatherw ho w as an as y l ee. B eca us e the governm ent5

s ubs equent l yt erm i nat ed the fa ther ’ s as y l um s t atus , the C our tr emanded the der i vat i ve asy lum claim fo r co n side rati o n b ythe B IA . N eith er the A b eb e n o r th e H assa n C o u rt con cl ud ed thatderi vati ve rel i ef w as avai l able i n such a si tuati on . M oreove r, this case d if f e rs f ro m b o th H a ss a n a n d A b e b e in th a t n e ith e r M iso k a ’s c h ild n o r h e r m o th e r, h e rse lf a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, ar e s ubj ectt o r emoval . T hus , M i s oka’ s w i fe a nd daught ercan r emai n i n the U ni t ed St at es , and the daught erw oul d notbe s ubj ect ed t o the dange rof F G M . M iso k a h a s n o t p o in ted to a n ysta tu te o r c a se law th a t w o u ld e n tit le h im to der i vat i ve r el i ef on thi s gr ound. M isok a a lso c lai m s tha t he w as d en ied a fu ll an d fa irh ea ri n g b ec au se th e IJ in iti a llysta ted in h is o p in io n th a t M iso k a h a d n o t su b m itt e d m a ter ials in su p p o rt o f h is F G M claim b ef

o re later co rrecti n g h im self. M isok a a rgu es th at th is sho w s tha t th e IJ f a ile d to p e rf

o rm a th o ro u g h a n a lysis o f a ll th e e v id e n c e s u b m itte d . W e d is a g re e . M o r e o v e r , a s n o t e d a b o v e , M i s o k a i s n o te n t i t l e d t o d e r i v a t i v e r e l i e f o n h i s F GM c l a i m. F o rth e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.