2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-27-2011

Harold Beauvais v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3866

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Harold Beauvais v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 780.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/780
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3866

___________

HAROLD BEAUVAIS,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A026-029-563)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Andrew Arthur

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 23, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed July 27, 2011 

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harold Beauvais, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision 

ordering his removal to Haiti and denying his application for deferral of removal under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the

petition for review.
2

I.

Beauvais is a citizen of Haiti who entered the United States in 1983 as a 

refugee. He obtained lawful permanent resident status in 1992. In 2002, Beauvais was 

convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of 

possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, and he was 

sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. The Department of Homeland Security initiated 

removal proceedings against Beauvais in 2008, and he filed an application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The Immigration Judge found Beauvais

removable based on his drug conviction, which constituted both an aggravated felony and 

a controlled substances violation, and concluded that the conviction rendered Beauvais

ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. 

In his application for CAT protection, Beauvais alleged that, because of his 

prior affiliation with a paramilitary group known as “Defacto,”1he was in danger of 

being killed. Before the IJ, Beauvais testified that he originally left Haiti because thefts 

and mistreatment by the Macoutes made life difficult. AR 123. After obtaining 

 

1

 Before the IJ, Beauvais explained that “Defacto” is used interchangeably with the name 

“Lavalas,” which he identified as the party of former-President Aristide. Likewise, 

Beauvais explained that the Convergence party, which is opposed to Defacto/Lavalas, is 

associated with the Ton Ton Macoutes (“Macoutes”), and that those terms are also used 

interchangeably. For convenience, and to avoid confusion, we will refer to the groups as 

“Defacto” and “Macoutes.” However, we note that there exists some authority indicating 

that these groups are not necessarily so well-defined. See, e.g., Civil v. INS, 140 F.3d 52, 

60 n.9 (1st Cir. 1998) (describing the evolution of groups related to the Macoutes).
3

permanent resident status in the United States, Beauvais returned to Haiti several times to 

visit family. He alleged that two visits in particular demonstrated a likelihood that he 

would be harmed if he is removed to Haiti.

Beauvais testified that he visited Haiti sometime in 1999 or 2000. During 

this trip, he witnessed the murder of his cousin, Ti Will. AR 138. Beauvais explained 

that Ti Will was a Macoutes, and that he was killed on the street by an unidentified 

Defacto member. AR 142. When Beauvais became visibly upset, someone in the crowd 

threatened that he would face similar treatment for showing sympathy to a Macoutes. Id. 

Beauvais stated that he was staying with his mother at the time, but had to leave because, 

for several days following Ti Will’s death, unknown individuals threw rocks at the house 

in the middle of the night. AR 142-44. He then hid at his godmother’s home until his 

return to the United States several days later. AR 145. Beauvais explained that although 

he was initially a Defacto supporter, his cousin’s murder caused him to support the 

Macoutes. AR 153.

Beauvais testified that he returned to Haiti for three months in 2002 -- his 

last trip before being arrested in the United States -- and faced further problems. 

Beauvais stated that, while in the United States, he occasionally sent food, supplies, and 

money to his cousin, Jocelyn, who had a leadership role in a political party. He initially 

testified that, upon his arrival in Haiti, he was told that Macoutes members were after him 

because they learned that he was providing support to Defacto through Jocelyn. AR 130-
4

32, 147-48. Later, Beauvais testified that Jocelyn was a Macoutes member, and that 

Defacto party members, not Macoutes, sought to harm him. AR 154. Because he felt 

threatened, Beauvais had to hide out in different places throughout his stay in Haiti. AR 

132-35. Beauvais further testified that Jocelyn was killed sometime around 2007 or 

2008, presumably because of political party conflicts, and that he fears the same will 

happen to him. AR 146-47.

Beauvais testified further that he had never been arrested while in Haiti. 

AR 156. On cross-examination, however, the Government noted that Beauvais’s 1983 

asylum application indicated that he was arrested for disturbing the peace and jailed for 

three months. AR 168, 211. When asked to explain the inconsistency, Beauvais said that 

he did not testify about his arrest and detention because it “happened [a] long, long time 

ago.” AR 168.

Beauvais also submitted the supporting testimony of three fellow inmates, 

though none had any first-hand knowledge of Beauvais’s experiences in Haiti. The IJ 

denied relief, reasoning that Beauvais was incredible, and that, notwithstanding the 

adverse credibility determination, Beauvais had failed to meet the standard for obtaining 

CAT relief.

Beauvais appealed to the BIA, and his notice of appeal appeared to challenge only 

the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See AR 43-45. The BIA dismissed the appeal, 

upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Beauvais timely filed this petition 
5

for review.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Because the BIA 

issued its own opinion, we review its decision rather than that of the IJ. See Li v. Att’y 

Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2005). However, we also look to the decision of the IJ 

to the extent that the BIA deferred to or adopted the IJ’s reasoning. See Chavarria v. 

Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). We review the Agency’s factual 

determinations, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, 

upholding them unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a 

contrary conclusion. See Fiadjoe v. Att’y Gen., 411 F.3d 135, 153 (3d Cir. 2005).

Beauvais bore the burden of demonstrating, through credible evidence, his 

entitlement to protection under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Because Beauvais 

filed his application in 2010, it is governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005. Under the 

REAL ID Act, an IJ must evaluate an applicant’s credibility under the totality of the 

circumstances and consider all relevant factors, including:

the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 

the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the 

consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral 

statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, 

and considering the circumstances under which the statements 

were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, 

the consistency of such statements with other evidence of 

record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 

statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 
6

claim, or any other relevant factor.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). In this case, the IJ reasoned -- and the BIA agreed -- that 

inconsistencies in Beauvais’s testimony, as well as inconsistencies between his testimony 

and applications for relief, indicated a lack of credibility. 

The IJ first noted that Beauvais provided inconsistent testimony concerning 

which political party he and his cousin, Jocelyn, supported, and which party sought to 

harm Beauvais. Moreover, Beauvais’s testimony was inconsistent with the claim for 

relief in his application. His testimony suggested that he faced problems in Haiti and 

fears additional trouble because he showed support for his cousins, who were Macoutes. 

However, Beauvais claimed in his 2010 asylum application that he had enemies in Haiti 

because of his earlier affiliation with the opposition Defacto paramilitary group.

Finally, the IJ noted that Beauvais denied ever being arrested in Haiti, 

despite having been arrested and detained for three months on charges that Beauvais 

testified were unwarranted. See AR 168-69, 211. The IJ reasonably questioned this 

inconsistency, as well as Beauvais’s explanation for failing to mention his arrest and 

detention, given that the arrest served as the basis for his original asylum application. 

See AR 211.

Given these significant discrepancies in Beauvais’s testimony, we are not 

compelled to conclude that the BIA and the IJ erred in finding Beauvais incredible. 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.