Source: https://immigration.lexroll.com/in-re-a-h-23-in-dec-774-a-g-2005/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:32:46+00:00

Document:
(1) The Attorney General denied asylum in the exercise of discretion to a leader-in-exile of the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria who was associated with armed groups that committed widespread acts of persecution and terrorism in Algeria, because the United States has significant interests in combating violent acts of persecution and terrorism, and it is inconsistent with these interests to provide safe haven to individuals who have connections to such acts of violence.
(2) Terrorist acts committed by the armed Islamist groups in Algeria, including the bombing of civilian targets and the widespread murders of journalists and intellectuals on account of their political opinions or religious beliefs, constitute the persecution of others.
(3) A person who is a leader-in-exile of a political movement may be found to have “incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in” acts of persecution in the home country by an armed group connected to that political movement where there is evidence indicating that the leader (1) was instrumental in creating and sustaining the ties between the political movement and the armed group and was aware of the atrocities committed by the armed group; (2) used his profile and position of influence to make public statements that encouraged those atrocities; or (3) made statements that appear to have condoned the persecution without publicly and specifically disassociating himself and his movement from the acts of persecution, particularly if his statements appear to have resulted in an increase in the persecution.
(4) The phrase “danger to the security of the United States” means any nontrivial risk to the Nation’s defense, foreign relations, or economic interests, and there are “reasonable grounds for regarding” an alien as a danger to the national security where there is information that would permit a reasonable person to believe that the alien may pose such a danger.
(5) The Attorney General remanded the record for further consideration by the Board of Immigration Appeals of the questions whether (1) there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the respondent “incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution” of others; (2) deference should be given to the credibility findings of the Immigration Judge; (3) there are “reasonable grounds for regarding [the respondent] as a danger to the security of the United States”; (4) the respondent presently faces a threat to his life or freedom if removed to Algeria; and (5) the respondent presently faces a likelihood of being tortured in Algeria.
This matter was referred to the Attorney General by the Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) granting respondent asylum. Matter of A—- H—- (BIA 2000). The BIA’s decision is vacated in its entirety, respondent is found excludable and ordered excluded, respondent’s application for asylum is denied, and respondent’s applications for withholding of deportation and deferral of removal to Algeria are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This matter was referred to the Attorney General by the Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS” or “Service”) from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) granting respondent asylum. Matter of A—- H—- (BIA 2000). For the reasons set forth below, I vacate the BIA’s decision in its entirety, find respondent excludable and order him excluded, deny respondent’s application for asylum, and remand respondent’s applications for withholding of deportation and deferral of removal to Algeria for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Most sources estimate that [in the mid-1990s] an average of 10,000 people were killed every year. . . . Both sides committed abuses. There is convincing evidence that the security forces carried out dozens of extrajudicial killings and often tortured and otherwise abused detainees. . . .
journalists, academics and thousands of other civilians as well as a number of foreigners. . . . Terrorists using bombs and car bombs attacked electric pylons, telephone exchanges, schools, bridges, police and military headquarters, local government offices, and railroad trains and tracks. Car bombs caused hundreds of civilian deaths.
respondent excludable under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), denied respondent’s request for asylum and withholding of deportation, and ordered him excluded and removed from the United States Matter of A—-H—- (I.J. 1997). The BIA reversed and remanded for a new hearing after concluding that the record was insufficient to support deportation. Matter of A—-H—- (BIA 1998). On remand, a second Immigration Judge heard additional evidence and again concluded that respondent was excludable, denied his request for asylum and withholding of deportation, and ordered him excluded and removed, but deferred his removal to Algeria pursuant to the law and regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. Matter of A—-H—- (I.J. 1999).
Immigration Judge’s findings on the credibility of respondent’s testimony in response to the INS’s evidence. Third, the BIA determined that there were insufficient grounds to regard respondent as a danger to the security of the United States under section 208(b)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act (asylum) and former section 243(h)(2)(D) of the Act (withholding of deportation). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c)(2)(C) (exception to asylum for cases filed before April 1, 1997). Fourth, the BIA concluded that it was inappropriate to deny respondent asylum as an exercise of the Attorney General’s discretion under section 208(b)(1) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(a) (2000). Fifth, the BIA reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that respondent was inadmissible under section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act based on a reasonable ground to believe respondent had engaged in or was likely to engage in terrorist activity. Finally, the BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that respondent was eligible for deferral of removal to Algeria under the Convention Against Torture.
The Acting Commissioner of the INS referred the BIA’s decision to the Attorney General, and on January 19, 2001, the Attorney General certified the appeal and stayed the Board’s decision Matter of A—-H—-, AG Order No. 2380-2001 (2001) (attachment to Matter of E—-L—-H—-, 23 IN Dec. 700 (A.G. 2004; BIA 1998)). Both the INS and respondent have submitted briefs addressing the issues raised by referral of the BIA’s decision.
Torture. On these issues, I find several errors in the BIA’s decision and vacate that decision in its entirety.
reopen and remand for further consideration the threshold question whether respondent presently faces a likelihood of torture for purposes of deferral of removal to Algeria.
section 208(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (1994) (stating that “the alien may be granted asylum in the discretion of the Attorney General if the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee”) (emphasis added); see also section 208(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (2000) (“The Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Attorney General. . . .”) (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14(a) (2005). Contrary to the BIA’s determination, I conclude that the record presented here makes it appropriate to deny respondent asylum in the exercise of my discretion, even if he would otherwise be eligible for asylum.
According to a report compiled by an affiliate of the British magazine The Economist, respondent declared at a public conference held in Europe in mid-June 1993 that the FIS would pursue an armed “struggle” in Algeria “to eliminate the junta in power and those who influence it,” statements suggesting to the authors of the report that the targets of the armed groups would include intellectuals and influential civilians who supported the Algerian Government and opposed the creation of an Islamic state. Around the time of respondent’s statements, five intellectuals were killed in Algeria, including at least two who were not directly involved in politics. In particular, a psychiatry professor, Dr. Mahfoud Boucebci, was brutally murdered in Algiers on June 15, 1993. Although respondent claimed to be shocked by Dr. Boucebci’s death, he testified in the proceedings below that he understood from other FIS members that Dr. Boucebci was assassinated because he was reputedly involved in the torture of FIS members. In an interview with Agence France-Presse 2 days after Dr. Boucebci’s death, respondent declared that the murder was “a sentence and not a crime,” and that while the indiscriminate killing of intellectuals is not justified, many of these “so-called intellectuals” are really informers for the Algerian Government.
representatives, persons who wrote murderous editorials . . . and those who, through psychiatry, advised torturers on how to obtain confessions. . . . The Algerian people have chosen as targets only those individuals upon whom the military-security system in Algeria relies. We know them one by one, and they are not innocent people.
I will not get into [the murder of Algerian journalists]. We suggested to our mujahidin brothers that they might hit on those who backed the coup. These are a group of extremist secularists who reject the choice of the Algerian people. It so happens that among them are a number of academics, journalists, politicians, soldiers, etc.
Evidence also indicates that other leaders within the FIS believed respondent had “one foot in the GIA camp,” and they associated him with the GIA’s assassination of two FIS leaders in November 1995 because of his failure to condemn those assassinations. Finally, respondent testified below that after the GIA’s murder of the FIS leaders, he “disassociated” himself from the GIA, which clearly implies that he was “associated” with the GIA up until at least November 1995.
I conclude that, taken together, the circumstances concerning respondent’s links to the activities of the armed Islamist groups in Algeria, as outlined above, strongly weigh against a discretionary grant of asylum in this case, whether or not respondent has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Algeria. The United States has significant interests in combating violent acts of persecution and terrorism wherever they may occur, including in Algeria, and it is inconsistent with these interests to provide safe haven to individuals who have connections to such acts of violence. It is also in the national interest of the United States for Algeria to achieve a peaceful and stable resolution to the conflicts that have plagued that nation.
political work, yet he never filed income tax returns in the United States and his children nevertheless received financial assistance from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Respondent’s apparent tax violations and his abuse of a system designed to provide relief to the needy exhibit both a disrespect for the rule of law and a willingness to gain advantage at the expense of those who are more deserving. Although there are equities that weigh in respondent’s favor — for example, his wife and children reside legally in the United States and three of his children are United States citizens — these equities do not outweigh the negative factors I have identified. My view, based on a thorough review of the record and considering the balance of factors discussed above, is that respondent is not entitled to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Therefore, I deny respondent’s application for asylum in the exercise of my discretion.
Although I have denied respondent’s application for asylum, respondent may still be entitled to mandatory withholding of deportation to Algeria if (1) he faces a threat to his life or freedom in Algeria because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion (a requirement that I discuss in part II.B.4 below), and (2) none of the exceptions to eligibility for withholding of deportation applies to respondent. See former section 243(h) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (2005). I address in the following discussion each of the issues concerning withholding of deportation raised by the BIA’s opinion.
The BIA concluded that the INS offered insufficient evidence to indicate that respondent had “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” for purposes of the exception to withholding of deportation set forth in former section 243(h)(2)(A) of the Act. I conclude the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in making that determination. I vacate this determination and remand for further proceedings consistent with the legal standard articulated herein.
can suffice, see, e.g., United States v. Koreh, 59 F.3d 431, 440 (3d Cir. 1995). It is appropriate to look at the totality of the relevant conduct in determining whether the bar to eligibility applies. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Reno, 258 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2001).
I conclude that a person, such as respondent, who is a leader-in-exile of a political movement may be found to have “incited,” “assisted,” or “participated in” acts of persecution in the home country by an armed group connected to that political movement. Examples of evidence that could support such a finding would include evidence indicating that the leader was instrumental in creating and sustaining the ties between the political movement and the armed group and was aware of the atrocities committed by the armed group, evidence that he used his profile and position of influence to make public statements that encouraged those atrocities, or evidence that he made statements that appear to have condoned the persecution without publicly and specifically disassociating himself and his movement from the acts of persecution, particularly if his statements appear to have resulted in an increase in the persecution. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive.
Here, the INS presented evidence that respondent, in his capacity as a recognized leader of the FIS, made widely published statements that could be read as encouraging or condoning violent actions taken by the GIA and the AIS. Certain evidence, including respondent’s own testimony, also indicates that in 1994 respondent personally facilitated the unification of the AIS and GIA through the FIS, and these actions could have supported and strengthened the activities of the GIA. Moreover, respondent did not attempt publicly to disassociate himself and the FIS from the GIA until at least November 1995, even though there is evidence in the record, some of it offered by respondent himself, indicating that the GIA’s terrorist acts were apparent well before that time.
I will leave it to the BIA on remand to apply these principles to the record in this case, taken as a whole. I also leave it to the BIA to determine whether it is appropriate to remand this case to an Immigration Judge for additional relevant fact-finding.
Indeed, respondent’s assertions that the FIS had no links to the armed groups and that the GIA did not engage in persecution before November 1995 do appear to contradict significant evidence in the record. For example, respondent claimed that before November 1995, the GIA did not kill journalists, women who appeared without veils or scarves, family members of the security forces, or other civilians, but this claim was inconsistent with evidence that he himself offered detailing such acts committed before November 1995 by armed Islamic groups, the most prevalent of which was the GIA. Moreover, respondent’s claim that he was unaware of such acts of persecution before November 1995 does strain credulity, in light of the evidence in the record revealing widespread public discussion of the violent conflict in Algeria. Certainly, the Immigration Judge who personally observed respondent’s testimony is particularly well situated to judge the credibility of his assertion of lack of personal knowledge on these key points.
of the Immigration Judge’s credibility determinations wholly inadequate. Much of the Immigration Judge’s assessment of respondent’s credibility related to his demeanor and sincerity as a witness, not only to asserted discrepancies or omissions in his testimony, and such assessments of testimonial credibility are uniquely within the ken of the Immigration Judge. Cf. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 (1985) (noting “the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility” and explaining that “only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said”); Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 (1985) (finding that “determinations of demeanor and credibility . . . are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province”) (footnote omitted); United States v. D’Anjou, 16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating that courts are “reluctant to overturn factual findings of the trial court, [and] this is doubly so where the question goes to the demeanor and credibility of witnesses at trial, since the [trial] court is so much better situated to evaluate these matters”). Moreover, the inconsistencies that principally undermined respondent’s credibility in the view of the Immigration Judge were inconsistencies between respondent’s testimony and the other evidence in the record on the issues of whether there were instrumental links between the FIS and the armed Islamist groups AIS and GIA, whether the armed groups committed acts of violence against civilians prior to November 1995, and, if so, whether respondent was aware of those acts. These inconsistencies were not addressed by the BIA, perhaps because the Board considered the INS’s evidence on these points insufficient or irrelevant.
As with the other issues relating to respondent’s eligibility for withholding of deportation, I will remand to the BIA for further consideration the issue of whether to defer to the Immigration Judge’s credibility findings. I conclude that a remand is appropriate on this issue so that the BIA may have an opportunity to consider these credibility findings in the context of the legal principles enunciated herein with respect to the applicability of the statutory bars to eligibility for withholding of deportation, and also because of the possibility that there may be additional fact-finding on remand.
conclude that the BIA may have relied on an incorrect legal standard on this question and because both the Immigration Judge and the BIA failed to apply the law correctly to the record in this case, I vacate the BIA’s discussion on this point and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
472 (3d ed. 1992). In contrast to other parallel provisions in former section 243(h)(2) — which provide, for example, that a crime be “serious” or “particularly serious” to constitute ineligibility for withholding of deportation, see former sections 243(h)(2)(B) and (C) — the statute’s reference to “danger” is not qualified. Any level of danger to national security is deemed unacceptable; it need not be a “serious,” “significant,” or “grave” danger. That understanding is supported by the Government’s use, in other contexts, of gradations of danger to national security. For example, for purposes of determining information classification levels, Executive Order No. 12958 categorizes the relative “damage” to national security caused by disclosure of certain types of information. See Exec. Order No. 12958 § 1.3 (describing the levels of such harm in descending order of severity as “grave damage,” “serious damage,” and “damage”). As these terms have common parlance in assessing risks to national security, Congress’s decision not to qualify the word “danger” in former section 243(h)(2)(D) makes clear that Congress intended that any nontrivial level of danger to national security is sufficient to trigger this statutory bar to withholding of deportation. The INA defines “national security” to mean “the national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the United States.” Section 219(c)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1189(c)(2) (2000). Read as a whole, therefore, the phrase “danger to the security of the United States” is best understood to mean a risk to the Nation’s defense, foreign relations, or economic interests. Where, under the circumstances, information about an alien supports a reasonable belief that the alien poses a danger — that is, any nontrivial degree of risk — to the national security, the statutory bar to eligibility is applicable.
I turn next to what constitutes “reasonable grounds for regarding.” The statutory reference to “reasonable” grounds implies the use of a reasonable person standard. See Adams v. Baker, 909 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating that a “`reasonable belief’ may be formed if the evidence . . . is sufficient to justify a reasonable person in the belief that the alien falls within the proscribed category”). That much is consistent with the BIA’s reliance on “probable cause” cases in construing the closely related phrase “reasonable ground to believe” as used in section 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(II) (2000) (providing that an alien is inadmissible where “a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe,” the alien “is engaged in, or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity”). See Black’s Law Dictionary 1219 (7th ed. 1999) (equating “probable cause” with “reasonable cause; sufficient cause; reasonable grounds”); Wayne R. LaFave Jerold H. Israel Criminal Procedure § 3.3, at 140 (2d ed. 1992) (stating that “for there to be probable cause, the facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man”). The BIA, however, suggested that this standard might require “having more evidence for than against” the stated proposition, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1201 (6th ed. 1990) to define “probable cause” as “[r]easonable cause; having more evidence for than against.” “Having more evidence for than against” is a preponderance of the evidence standard. I conclude that as used in the national security-related provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “reasonable grounds for regarding” is substantially less stringent than preponderance of the evidence. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (noting that “probable cause” is a less demanding standard than “preponderance of the evidence”); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983) (“Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, useful in formal trials, have no place in the [probable cause] decision.”). The “reasonable grounds for regarding” standard is satisfied if there is information that would permit a reasonable person to believe that the alien may pose a danger to the national security. See, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 235.
proscribed category.” Id. (citations omitted). It was enough that the information relied upon by the Government was not “intrinsically suspect.” Id.
I will remand to the BIA the issue of whether, applying the proper legal standards described above, there are reasonable grounds for regarding respondent as a danger to the security of the United States. On remand, it will be appropriate for the BIA to consider the record taken as a whole (including any further fact-finding that may be conducted) to determine whether the evidence would support a reasonable belief that respondent poses a danger to our national security interests, including the foreign relations and economic interests of the United States. Like the BIA, I find the Immigration Judge’s reasoning on this point faulty. Nevertheless, the United States has significant foreign relations and economic interests in a peaceful resolution to the violence in Algeria, and the long-term stabilization of that Government is of significant importance to United States interests. Our Nation’s multilateral efforts to fight international terrorism depend on a consistent and determined opposition to terrorism and related persecution of civilians wherever it appears, whether in Algeria or elsewhere. Our international fight against terrorism does not permit us to be seen by our international partners in this effort as providing safe harbor for those who engage in, espouse, support, assist, encourage, or lead others to commit violent acts of persecution and terrorism.
As a threshold requirement for eligibility for withholding of deportation to Algeria, respondent bears the burden of establishing that, if returned to Algeria, his life or freedom would be threatened because of his race, nationality, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion See former section 243(h)(1) of the Act. Here, respondent did not assert that he actually suffered past persecution in Algeria; his claim was based on an asserted future threat to his life or freedom. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). The INS did not contest that threshold requirement at the outset of these proceedings; rather, the INS stipulated in 1997 that respondent had a well-founded fear of persecution (and presumably faced a threat to his life or freedom) if returned to Algeria. That stipulation was based on a 1997 State Department report on conditions in Algeria at that time. For the reasons that follow, I will reopen this threshold issue of the threat to respondent’s life or freedom and remand this issue for further consideration, including further submissions from the State Department and the parties, as appropriate.
for additional fact-finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) (2005). Specifically, the regulations governing BIA process provide that “[i]f further factfinding is needed in a particular case, the Board may remand the proceeding to the immigration judge or, as appropriate, to the Service,” with or without a motion from the parties. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). This authority ensures that the BIA is not denied essential facts that bear on the appropriate resolution of a case. The authority is not limited to facts contested by the parties; otherwise, the INS would be dissuaded from stipulating to facts in the early stages of a proceeding for fear the material facts may change over time. Second, without regard to the authority delegated to the BIA, the Attorney General’s plenary authority to resolve applications for withholding or deferral of removal empowers him to remand a case whenever he deems additional fact-finding necessary or appropriate. See section 103(g)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1103(g)(2) (West Supp. 2004) (stating that the Attorney General shall “review such administrative determinations in immigration proceedings, delegate such authority and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary for carrying out this section“) (emphasis added). Indeed, as the ultimate fact-finder, the Attorney General must be able to establish and verify all facts as they currently exist.
The significant amount of time that has passed since the outset of this case counsels in favor of a fresh consideration of the present facts and circumstances relevant to respondent’s threshold claim of eligibility for withholding of deportation to Algeria. See Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 328-33 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover, there are specific reasons here to believe that respondent may no longer satisfy that threshold requirement today, whether or not he did in 1997. Specifically: (1) country conditions in Algeria may have changed significantly since the time respondent was granted deferral of removal to Algeria (notably, I understand that other FIS leaders have been released from prison and allowed to return to their homes); (2) the Government of Algeria has instituted a grant of amnesty for political opponents and such amnesty may be available to respondent; and (3) after respondent was granted deferral of removal, he reportedly stated publicly that he was willing to return to Algeria, and this apparent willingness may undermine his earlier claim that he fears torture or a threat to his life or freedom based on persecution if returned there. Because the INS did not submit evidence on the merits of respondent’s claim to threshold eligibility for withholding of deportation, and in light of these new considerations, I will reopen this issue and remand it to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a further remand to the Immigration Judge, if appropriate. These further proceedings may include, as appropriate, an opportunity for further submissions by the parties and the Department of State on whether respondent presently faces a threat of persecution in Algeria, taking into account the relevant current conditions in Algeria.
(2005). The Immigration Judge found, in 1999, that respondent had satisfied this showing, a conclusion upheld by the BIA in 2000, and not disputed by the INS in its submission to the Attorney General in 2001, where it stated: “At this time, the Service does not oppose the Immigration Court’s grant of deferral of removal under [the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture].” However, for the reasons discussed above with respect to respondent’s claim of a threat to his life or freedom, I will also reopen the threshold issue under the Convention Against Torture of whether respondent faces a likelihood of being tortured in Algeria, and I will remand that issue as well for further consideration, including further submissions from the State Department and the parties, as appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that respondent is excludable and I order him excluded. I vacate the decision of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion on respondent’s eligibility for withholding of deportation and for deferral of removal to Algeria. Respondent’s application for asylum is denied as a matter of discretion.
 On March 1, 2003, after the events in question here, the INS ceased to exist as an agency within the Department of Justice, and its functions of processing applications for asylum and enforcing the immigration laws were transferred to components of the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-296, §§ 441, 447, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192, 2205.
 See Omnibus Consolidation and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Pub.L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822; Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478 (INS Feb. 19, 1999) (codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-1208.18 (2005)); United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force June 26, 1987).
section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (2000) (definition of “refugee”), section 208(b)(2)(A) of the Act (exceptions to asylum applicable to applications filed on or after April 1, 1997), and section 241(b)(3) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000) (withholding of removal and exceptions thereto). Accordingly, the legal principles enunciated herein are equally applicable to asylum and withholding of removal cases arising under current law.
 The Attorney General has authority to conduct de novo review of BIA decisions. See Deportation Proceedings for Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, 13 Op. O.L.C. 1, 7 (1989); Deportation Proceedings for Joseph Patrick Thomas Doherty, 12 Op. O.L.C. 1, 3-4 (1988). Respondent argues at length that my review of the BIA decision should be deferential, not de novo, but he fundamentally misconceives the role of the Attorney General in reviewing decisions of the BIA. “The BIA is entirely a creation of the Attorney General,” 12 Op. O.L.C. at 3 n. 5 (citing Greene v. INS, 313 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1963)), and exercises only such authority as is delegated to it by the Attorney General. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1) (2005). The Attorney General has retained full decision-making authority under the immigration statutes, including “full authority to receive additional evidence and to make de novo factual determinations.” 12 Op. O.L.C. at 4; see also INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 327 (1992) (same).
 The BIA also reversed the Immigration Judge’s sua sponte ruling that respondent is separately inadmissible because there is “reasonable ground to believe [respondent] is engaged in, or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity” under section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act. In light of my conclusions on the other issues raised in this case and my review of the record, I conclude that it is unnecessary for me to reach this separate ground for inadmissibility. I vacate those portions of the decisions below addressing this question, and I remand this issue to the BIA for further consideration, if and as the BIA determines appropriate.
 The GIA itself issued a document in August 1994 identifying respondent as the “Minister of Foreign Relations” for the GIA’s “Revolutionary Council.” Respondent denied that he held this position with the GIA, but this document indicates, at a minimum, that the GIA regarded respondent as one of its leaders and looked to him for guidance, support, and leadership.
 The Koreh case construed a related provision in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, Pub.L. No. 80-774, ch. 647, 62 Stat. 1009 (1948), as amended by Pub.L. No. 81-555, ch. 262, 64 Stat. 219 (1950) (“DPA”), which prohibited the issuance of entry visas to “any person who advocated or assisted in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, or national origin.” 59 F.3d at 438 (quoting DPA § 13, 64 Stat. at 227). The Third Circuit concluded that the defendant’s involvement as an editor in the publication of anti-Semitic articles in Hungary during World War II “assisted in the persecution of Hungarian Jews” by “fostering a climate of anti-Semitism” that “conditioned the Hungarian public to acquiesce [in], to encourage, and to carry out” acts of persecution. 59 F.3d at 440 (emphasis added). This holding was independent of a separate conclusion by the court that the defendant also “advocated” persecution within the meaning of the DPA. See id. at 439-43.

References: § 1208
 § 208
 § 1158
 § 1158
 § 1208
 § 1208
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1189
 v. 

§ 1182
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1208
 § 1003
 § 1003
 § 1103
 v. 
 § 2242
 § 1101
 § 1231
 v. 
 § 1003
 v. 
 § 13