NOT 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 os . 09- 2253 and 09- 4557 ( cons ol i dat ed)

___________ AR VI NDE R S I NGH,

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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 70- 906- 120) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A l bert o J . R i efkohl

______________________________________________________

Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : O ct ober4, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA rvi nderSi ngh, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks r evi ew of tw o B oar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) o rd e rs. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill d e n yh is2

p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. I. Si ngh, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, came t o the U ni t ed St at es i n 1993. H e appl i ed foras y l um and vol unt arydepartur e, cl ai m i ng thathe had be en arr es t ed, det ai ned, and beat en bec aus e of hi s pol i t i cal and r el i gi ous aff i l i at i ons . H e s t at ed thathe w as a mem ber of the A kal i Party , an or gani zat i on thatadvoca t es foran i ndepende ntSi kh s t at e thr ough p e a c e f u l m e a n s. H e a lso a lleg e d th a t h e a n d h is f a m ilyh a d p ro v id e d f

o o d a n d sh e lter to m ember s of a s epar at i s tt err or i s tgr oup outof dur es s . A thi s i m m i gr at i on hear i ng, Si ngh as s ert ed thathe had be en arr es t ed s ever al t i m es bythe pol i ce i n I ndi a due t o hi s pol i t i cal and r el i gi ous aff

i l i at i ons and bec aus e theys us pect ed hi m of t err or i s tact i vi ty . H e s t at ed thatthe pol i ce t ol d hi m t o qui thi s pol i t i cal act i vi t i es and l eave the country , and s t at ed that he bel i eved theyw oul d have ki l l ed hi m i f he s t ay ed. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) det erm i ned thatSi ngh’ s t es t i m onyw as vague, exagge r at ed, and notcr edi bl e. ( A . R . 452- 5 3 .) In th e a ltern a tiv e , the IJ a lso f o u n d th a t S in g h h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish m e m b e rsh ip in a part i cul arpol i t i cal party , orthathe had s uffe r ed harm as the r es ul tof hi s r el i gi ous p rac ti ce s. (A . R . 4 5 2 -53 . ) T h e IJ d en ied a sy lum an d v o lun taryd ep arture. S ing h ’s couns el fi l ed a not i ce of appea l w i th the B I A , butneverfi l ed a br i ef. T he B I A di s m i s s ed Si ngh’ s appea l becaus e the not i ce of appea l di d not“meani ngful l yappr i s e” the B I A of the re a s o n s f o r t h e a p p e a l. ( A .R . 4 2 9 .) Ne a r l ye i g h ty e a r s l a t e r , S i n g h f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e o p e n h i s c a s e wi th th e BI A,3

cl ai m i ng thathi s i m m i gr at i on att orneyw as i neff ect i ve bef

or e the I m m i gr at i on C ourtand the B I A . H e cl ai m ed hi s att orneyw as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o s eek pr ot ect i on underthe Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) a n d f o rf a i l i n g t o f

i l e a b r i e f

wi th th e BI A. On A p ril 3 , 2 0 0 9 , the B IA d e n ied th e m o tio n a s u n tim e ly , d e c lin in g to to ll th e tim e lim it bas ed upon i t s concl us i on thatSi ngh had fa i l ed t o m eetthe s t andar d fordemonstr at i ng in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a s s e t f

o rt h in In re C o m p e a n , B a n g a ly & J -E -C -, 2 4 I. & N . D e c . 7 1 0 (A .G . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ C o m p e a n I” ). S in g h f iled a tim e lyp e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt, an d th e n f iled a m o tio n to r emand bas ed on a c hange i n the l aw r egar di ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . T he G o v e rn m e n t f

iled a “ N o n -O p p o sitio n ” to h is re m a n d re q u e st. I n th e me a n t i me , S i n g h a l s o f i l e d a mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e rwi th th e BI A. On N ovember19, 2009, the B I A deni ed the mot i on. I tt ook not e thatC om pean I had bee n vaca t ed, and bas ed i t s anal y s i s on the corr ects t andar d s etforth i n I n r e C om pean, B a n g a ly& J-E -C , 2 5 I. & N . D e c . 1 (A .G . 2 0 0 9 ) (“ C o m p e a n II” ). S in g h f iled a tim e ly pet i t i on forr evi ew of thatdeci s i on. T he tw o cas es have be en cons ol i dat ed, and w e have i s s u e d a s t a yo f

r e mo v a l p e n d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f b o th p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a) to rev iew the d en ial o f S ing h ’s m o tio n to re o p e n a n d m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n . W e re v iew d e n ials o f m o tio n s to r eopen a nd forr econs i der at i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. B or ges v. G onzal es , 402 F. 3d 398,4

4 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , w e m a yre v e rse th e B IA ’s d e c isio n o n lyif it i s “a rbitrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law . ” G u o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). III . S in g h d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t h is m o tio n to re o p e n w a s u n tim e ly. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(7 )(C ). R a th e r, h e c h a llen g e s th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t h e w a s n o t en tit led to e q u ita b le to llin g o f

th e tim e lim it b a s e d o n h is c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. In iti a lly , in lig h t o f

C o m p e a n II a n d g iv e n th e G o v e rn m e n t’s n o n -o p p o sitio n , it appea r ed thatthe B I A s houl d be perm i t t ed t o r econs i derSi ngh’ s m ot i on t o r eopen. T hat d ec isi o n v ac ated C o m p ea n I an d reinstated In re L o za d a, 19 I. & N . D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ), w hi ch es t abl i s hed the r equi r ement s forfi l i ng a mot i on t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs b ase d u p o n a c lai m o f in ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. H o w ev er, i n ruli n g o n S ing h ’s s u b s e q u e n t m o tio n to re c o n s id e r, t h e B IA to o k n o te th a t C o m p e a n I h a d b e e n v a c a te d . U nderthe corr ects t andar d, the B I A concl uded thatSi ngh had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe had bee n pr ej udi ced byhi s att orney ’ s per form ance s uch thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng w oul d be appr opr i at e. B ecaus e the ca s es have be en cons ol i dat ed, and bec aus e the B I A has had the oppor tuni tyt o r econs i derSi ngh’ s cas e i n l i ghtof the corr ects t andar d, w e w i l l focus on th e B IA ’s tr e a tm e n t o f

th e m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . T h e G o v e rn m e n t f

irst a rg u e s th a t S in g h d o e s n o t h a v e th e rig h t to c o u n se l at h is r emoval pr ocee di ngs . H ow ever , i f couns el ’ s i neff ect i venes s pr event s an al i en fr om5

pr es ent i ng hi s cas e, s uch i neff ect i venes s coul d cons t i tut e a de ni al of due pr oces s under th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. L u v . A s h c ro f t, 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T o pr evai l on hi s m ot i on t o r econs i derthe deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen, Si ngh had t o est abli sh that he w as prej ud i ced b yhis cou nsel ’s perform ance. A n ali en m ust s h o w th a t c o u n s e l’ s p e rf o rm a n c e “ p re v e n te d [ h im ] f ro m re a s o n a b ly p re s e n tin g h is c a s e ,” and that“s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce” r es ul t ed. Fadi ga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T o s how pr ej udi ce, an al i en musts how thatther e i s a “r eas onabl e l i kel i hood” that the re su ltw o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t had the e rrors n o t occ u rred . Id. at 15 9 . T h e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t b e c a u se S in g h p re se n ted n o a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e th a t h e c laim s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n p re se n ted to th e B IA to c h a llen g e th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g , h e c o u ld nots how thathe w as pr ej udi ced byhi s att orney ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a br i ef orpet i t i on for re v ie w o f

th a t f in d in g . L i kew i s e, the B I A found thatSi ngh had fa i l ed t o s how a “r eas onabl e l i kel i hood” of bei ng gr ant ed pr ot ect i on underC A T . T he B I A fi r s tcons i der ed thathi s cl ai m r el i ed on t es t i m onythatthe I J found t o be notcr edi bl e. “I n as s es s i ng w hetheri ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthatan appl i cantw oul d be t ortur ed i n the pr opos ed countryof r emoval , al l evi dence re le v a n t to th e p o s s ib ility o f f u tu re to rtu re s h a ll b e c o n s id e re d .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 3 ). C l ai m s forr el i ef unde rC A T m us tbe cons i der ed s epar at el yfr om cl ai m s foras y l um . See Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 467 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A n adver s e cr edi bi l i tyas s es s m ent forpurpos es of as y l um “does notdefe at[a pe t i t i oner ’ s ] abi l i tyt o ‘ m eet[hi s ] bur den of6

p ro o f’ u n d e r th e [ C A T ].” I d . at 4 7 6 (f in d in g th a t p e tit io n e r’s c re d ib ili tyw ith re sp e c t to as y l um and w i thhol di ng cl ai m s s houl d not“bl eed thr ough t o the B I A ’ s cons i der at i on of [hi s ] cl ai m underthe [CA T ] w i thoutfurtherexpl anat i on”) ; s ee a l s o G uo v. G onzal es , 463 F. 3d 109, 114 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( “A C A T cl ai m cannotbe deni ed s ol el yon the bas i s of an adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng s i nce aC A T cl ai m m aybe es t abl i s hed us i ng di ffe r entevi dence and theor i es than thos e us ed foras y l um cl ai m s . ”) . A n appl i cantw hos e t es t i m onyi s found t o be notcr edi bl e forpurpos es of as y l um m ays t i l l pr evai l “‘ s o l ong as the fa ctual pr edi cat e of the appl i cant ’ s cl ai m of futur e per s ecut i on i s i ndepende ntof the t es t i m ony that the IJ foun d to be no tcredi ble. ’” G uo , 46 3 F . 3d at11 4 (quo t i ng P aul v. G on zal es, 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 4 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) ( em p h asis o m itted). In th is c a se , the B IA c o rre c tlyn o ted th a t S in g h ’s c laim f o r re lief u n d e r C A T is pr emi s ed on the s ame factual bas i s as hi s cl ai m foras y l um . M or eover , the B I A di d not r el ys ol el yon the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he B I A al s o cons i der ed that Si ngh fai l ed t o pr es entanyaddi t i onal evi dence demonstr at i ng thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t ortur ed i f r eturned t o I ndi a. U nl i ke the appl i canti n Z ubeda, Si ngh has notpoi nt ed t o anyobj ect i ve evi dence s ugges t i ng thathe w oul d m or e l i kel ythan not be s ubj ect ed t o t ortur e i f r emoved t o I ndi a. H e r el i es on D epartm entof St at e r eport s on countrycondi t i ons i n I ndi a, w hi ch do s t at e thatl aw enfor cementauthor i t i es thr oughout I ndi a abus e det ai nees . ( See, e. g. , A . R . 97- 98, 544. ) H ow ever , as the B I A found, he has fai l ed t o pr es entanydocument aryevi dence s ugges t i ng thata per s on w ho ai ded, butw as7

nots us pect ed of be i ng, a t err or i s tw oul d be t ortur ed byI ndi an off i ci al s . A s s uch, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatSi ngh fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe w as p r e j u d i c e d b y c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o r a i s e a c l a i m f

o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e C A T . A c c o r d i n g l y, the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r econs i derw as appr opr i at e. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l denyboth pet i t i ons forr evi ew . T he s t ayof re m o v a l w e p re v io u slyg ra n ted is v a c a ted . In lig h t o f o u r d isp o sitio n , S in g h ’s m o tio n to r emand i n C . A . 09- 2253 i s deni ed as m oot . T he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on foran or der di r ect i ng the part i es t o bearthei row n cos t s and t o s t aythe br i efi ng s chedul e i s deni ed.