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 2-28-2006 

# Enohonsi 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 . 05-1764

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 " E no hon si v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1531. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1531H on. A ni t a B . B r ody , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe * E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 1764 

### ITA B . ENO HO NS I, Peti ti on er

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; DO NA LD MO NI CA , U. S. DE PA RT MENT OF HO ME LAND SE CU RI TY , R esp o n d ents

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 16- 091- 421) Im m i grat i on Judg e: G race A . S ease Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February28, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and B R O D Y , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed February28, 2006) OP I NI ONW e not e thatthe r ecor d i s i ncons i s t ent a s t o the corr ect 1 s pel l i ngs of “I t s eki r i ” and “O rum , ” w hi ch ar e s om et i m es s pel l ed “ I t s e k u r i ” a n d “ O r o m , ” r e s p e c t i v e l y. 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. I t a B . E nohons i has fi l ed a pe t i t i on t o r evi ew the deni al of hi s appl i cat i on for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ). T h e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) f o u n d th a t E n o h o n si w a s n o t a credi ble w i tness and further con cl ud ed that“even i f w e w ere t o credi t[E no ho nsi ’s ] t es t i m onythathe i s a mem berof the I t s eki r i tr i be and thathe i s a C hr i s t i an, ” A pp. at19, he had f ai l ed t o pr ove thathe had a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) aff i r m ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1). Se e A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W h e re , a s h e re , th e B o a rd is s u e s a s in g le -m e m b e r d e c is io n p u rs u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 1( e) ( 5) that“mer el ys uppl ement s the [I J ’ s ] opi ni on, ” the courtr evi ew s the d e c isio n o f

th e IJ a s w e ll as th a t o f th e B IA . N iam v . A sh c ro f t, 35 4 F .3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 5 -5 6 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I . Backg r ound E nohons i i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of N i ger i a. H e i s a mem berof the I t s eki r i tr i be and i s a C hr i s t i an. H e s pentthe ea r l yy ear s of hi s l i fe i n O rum . E nohons i t es t i fi ed that 1 there w as v iolen ce b etw ee n M u sli m s an d C h ri sti an s in C ard u n a, w h ere o n e o f h is bro thers3

l i ved. I n J anuaryof 2001, E nohons i ’ s m otherw entt o C ar duna t o vi s i tE nohons i ’ s br ot her and s he found thathe had be en murde r ed and hi s hous e had be en burned dow n. E nohons i ’ s fatherbegan bui l di ng a compound i n O rum i n 1985. I thad over tw e n ty ro o m s , w h ic h h is f a th e r w o u ld re n t e x c lu s iv e ly to m e m b e rs o f th e It s e k ir i tr ib e . E nohons i w or ked atthe compound. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe I j aw and I bo peopl e w oul d oft en att ack the I t s eki r i s . H i s par ent s w er e ki l l ed i n D ece m berof 2001, al l egedl yaft era gr oup o f Ib o s a n d Ij a w s s e t f

ir e to th e c o m p o u n d . A f ter th e c o m p o u n d w a s d e stro y e d , E n o h o n si w e n t to L a g o s to liv e w ith h is b r o th e r . H e a n d h i s b r o th e rw e r e a t t a c k e d b y a g r o u p o f s i x p e o p l e . E n o h o n s i r a n a w a y, buthi s br otherw as badl ybeat en and di ed as a r es ul t . E nohons i does notknow w ho a tta c k e d h im a n d h is b ro th e r o r w h y . A f ter th e d e a th o f

h is b ro th e r, E n o h o n si le f t N ig e ria b e c a u se th e d e a th s o f h is par ent s and br other s m ade hi m fea rthathi s l i fe w as i n danger . H e moved t o B eni n, and th e n to C o te d ’I v o ir e . H e n e v e r o b ta in e d p e rm is s io n to liv e p e rm a n e n tly in C o te d ’I v o ir e . Fear i ng the i ncr eas ed vi ol ence i n the C ot e d’ I voi r e, E nohons i s t ow ed aw ayon a s hi p i n N ovemberof 2003. H e di d notknow w her e the s hi p w as goi ng. T he s hi p docked i n Phi l adel phi a on D ece m ber13, 2002 and he w as t aken t o a hos pi t al . O n D ece m ber19, 2 0 0 3 , h e w a s ta k e n to th e a irp o rt a n d q u e s tio n e d . I I . Lega l St anda r ds4

In i t s orderaffirm i ng the IJ' s deci si on , the B IA fou nd i t“un necessaryt o ad dress cr edi bi l i tyas , even i f cr edi bl e, the r es pondentfai l ed t o s us t ai n the bur den of pr oof appl i cabl e t o as y l um and the more s tr i ngentbur den appl i cabl e t o w i thhol di ng of rem o v al. ” R ec . at 2. T h ere fo re, fo r pu rpo ses o f th is ap p ea l, w e a cc ep t E n o h o n si’ s te s tim o n ya s tru e . S e e K a y e m b e v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 4 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 -3 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T o qual i fyas a “r efuge e” w ho m ayr ece i ve as y l um , an al i en mustes t abl i s h thathe ors he i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o hi s orhercountryof nat i onal i ty“bec aus e of p e r s e c u t i o n o ra w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l 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. ” I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he per s ecut i on al l eged m us tbe atthe hands of the governm entori ndi vi dual s the governm enti s ei therunabl e or u n w illin g to c o n tr o l. G a o v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, an as y l um appl i cantm us ts how “that[he or ] s he has a genui ne fe ar , and thata r eas onabl e per s on i n [hi s or ] her ci r cumst ance s w oul d fea rper s ecut i on i f r eturned t o [hi s or ] hernat i ve country . ” G ao, 299 F. 3d at272. T he B I A and thi s courthave de fi ned per s ecut i on t o i ncl ude ac t s or condi t i ons “s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T hus , “per s ecut i on does notencompas s al l tr eatm entt hat ours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. T he thr es hol d fores t abl i s hi ng el i gi bi l i tyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval i s hi ghert han5

thatfores t abl i s hi ng ent i t l ementt o as y l um and r equi r es the pet i t i onert o demonstr at e a “cl earpr obabi l i ty ” that , upon deport at i on t o the countryof or i gi n, “hi s orherl i fe or f re e d o m w o u ld b e th re a te n e d o n a c c o u n t o f o n e o f th e s ta tu to ri ly en u m e ra te d f a c to rs .” Senathi r aj ah v. I N S, 157 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A n appl i cant w h o d o e s n o t q u a lifyf

o r a sy lu m n e c e ss a rilyd o e s n o t q u a lifyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. G u o v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 6 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 1 n . 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T o qual i fyforr el i ef unde rthe C A T , an appl i cantforr el i ef be ar s the bur den of p ro v in g th ro u g h o b

jec tiv e e v id e n c e th a t itis “ m o re lik e lyth a n n o t” th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e “ to rtu re d ” in th e c o u n tryto w h ich th e a p p lica n t w o u ld b e re m o v e d . W a n g v . A sh c ro f t, 3 6 8 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2)). W hetheran appl i canthas demonstr at ed “pe r s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on” on ac countof a s t atut or i l yenumer at ed fa ct ori s a fa ctual det erm i nat i on, w h ich th is c o u rt re v iew 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 . S h a rd a r v . A sh c ro f t, 3 8 2 F .3 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , the IJ's f in d in g m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s “the evi dence n o t o n lysu p p o rts” a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , “b u t c o m p e ls i t . ” E l i asZ a c a ri a s , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 4 8 1 n .1 . I I I . D i s cus s i on T h e IJ f o u n d th a t E n o h o n si h a d f a iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g e lig ib ili ty forthe r el i ef he s oughtbeca us e he of fer ed “w eak, gener al , orm eage rt es t i m ony . ” A pp. at6

2 0 (cit ati o n o m itted). E n o h o n si of fe rs no ev iden ce that w o u ld co m p el a c o n tr ary co n clus ion . H e p rov ided n o co rrob o rati o n fo r his b eli ef that h is fam il ym em b ers w ere k ille d o n th e b a s is o f

th e irre lig io u s o r t ri b a l id e n titie s . T hi s courthas s t at ed that“the abs ence of corr obor at i on orexpl anat i on i n cas es w her e i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tone orthe othercan l ead t o a fi ndi ng thatthe appl i cant has fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. ” A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 546 - 47 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e o n lyc o rro b o ra tio n o f h is t es t i m onythatE nohons i offe r s ar e countryr eport s . T hes e r eport s , w hi l e not i ng the ex ist en ce o f re li g iou s o r tri b al co n fli ct i n p arti cu lar pa rt s o f N igeria, fail to su p p o rt E nohons i ’ s s peci fi c al l egat i ons of vi ol ence agai ns thi s fami l yforbei ng C hr i s t i ans or m ember s of the I t s eki r i tr i be, beca us e theydo notr efe r ence the t i m es and pl ace s of the e v e n ts h e a lleg e s. T h e re f o re , the IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t E n o h o n si h a d f a iled to m e e t h is bur den of pr oof i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . E ven i f the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatE nohons i di d notes t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on w as err oneous , the I J al s o found thatE nohons i w as i nel i gi bl e foras y l um b e c a u s e h e c o u l d s a f

e l yr e l o c a t e wi th i n Ni g e r i a . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i i ) ( “ An a p p lica n t d o e s n o t h a v e a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n if

th e a p p lica n t co u ld a v o id p e rse c u tio n b yre lo c a tin g to a n o th e r p a rt o f th e a p p lica n t’s c o u n tryo f n a tio n a lity. . . if u n d e r a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s it w o u ld b e re a s o n a b le to e x p e c t th e a p p lic a n t to d o s o .” ). T he countr yr eport s thatE nohons i offe r ed fa i l t o es t abl i s h a patt ern orpr act i ce of7

viol ence a gainstC hri st i ans or m em bers of t he It seki ri tri be thr ou gh ou tN i geri a. T hu s, E nohons i pr es ent ed no evi dence orconvi nci ng ar gum ent s t o contr adi ctthe I J ' s fi ndi ng thathe coul d s afe l yr el ocat e. B e c a u se E n o h o n si h a s f a iled sh o w a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n th e b a sis o f a n yp rotec ted g rou n d , h e is n o t el igible f o r asy lum o r fo r w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. In a d d iti o n , h e h a s f

a iled to sh o w th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w ill b e to rtu re d a n d is ther efor e i nel i gi bl e forr el i ef unde rthe C A T . W e w i l l ther efor e denythe Pet i t i on for R e v ie w .