Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1173604.html
Timestamp: 2019-01-24 01:17:43
Document Index: 527974736

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2002241', '§\u2002212', '§\u2002212', '§\u2002208', '§\u2002421', '§\u2002212', '§\u2002241', '§\u2002208', '§\u20021231', '§\u20021231', '§\u2002421']

CHEEMA v. IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION SERVICE | FindLaw
CHEEMA v. IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Harpal Singh CHEEMA; Rajwinder Kaur, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Before: NOONAN, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for the Petitioners. Ethan B. Kanter, Department of Justice, Office of Immigration and Litigation, Washington, DC, for the Respondent. Ravinder S. Bhalla, Krovatin & Associates, LLC, Newark, NJ, for the amicus curiae, The Sikh Coalition.
Harpal Singh Cheema (Cheema) and his wife Rajwinder Kaur petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying them asylum and the withholding of deportation and holding them eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) but granting them only deferral of removal. We hold that the Board's denial of withholding cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are a danger to the security of the United States. We remand to permit the Board to exercise discretion on the asylum petitions. We sustain the Board's deferral of removal and its denial of full relief under CAT.
The Sikh Student Federation in India splintered in 1986 into a peaceful and a militant group, the latter being led by Daljit Singh Bittu and being known as SSB, Bittu. Cheema knew Bittu as a student in India. In 1983, Bittu became wanted by India for bank robbery and assassination. Cheema was contacted by him by telephone from Pakistan in 1996. Thereafter they spoke often about the independence movement, its need for a newspaper and a radio station, and the desirability of informing the United Nations about Indian atrocities in the Punjab. Cheema told Bittu that militant operations had greatly damaged the movement. Cheema took calls from individuals in India and connected them with Bittu in Pakistan. In October 1991, a Sikh connected with the kidnapping of Liviu Radu, the Romanian ambassador to India, called Cheema, who eventually put the caller in touch with Bittu. Cheema told Bittu that the kidnaping was objectionable, and Bittu told him that he had spoken to the kidnappers and they would release Radu unharmed, as they did.
Rajwinder Kaur testified that since coming to the United States in 1993 she has sent money to aid Sikh widows and orphans. According to her, she has never engaged in providing financial or other support for Sikh militants, and she is not aware of her husband doing so.
1. Withholding of Deportation. INA § 241(a)(4)(B) renders deportable “[a]ny alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after entry engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)).”
“Engage in terrorist activity defined” is defined in INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) as:
(C) there are serious reasons for considering that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States; or
Under the statute, the Board, acting for the Attorney General, must grant Cheema and Rajwinder Kaur withholding of deportation, unless there are “reasonable grounds” for regarding them as dangers to the security of the United States.
2. Asylum. As the asylum applications were filed before April 1, 1997, they are not governed by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. They are governed by INA § 208, as amended by AEDPA § 421. This section, entitled “Denial of Asylum to Terrorists,” states:
The bar against asylum for persons who fall under INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(i) or § 241(a)(4)(B) is mandatory, save for one exception. Section 421(a) allows granting relief to an alien who has engaged in terrorist activity if “the Attorney General determines, in the discretion of the Attorney General, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States.”
The statute imposes a two-part analysis: (1) whether an alien engaged in a terrorist activity, and (2) whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States. Having determined that Cheema and his wife engaged in terrorist activity, the Board turned to the second question of whether there are reasonable grounds for regarding them to be “a danger to the security of the United States.”
3. CAT. CAT creates a mandatory denial of withholding of deportation if the applicant falls within Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(2). Section 241(b)(3)(B) creates an exception to the grant of withholding if “the Attorney General decides that ․ there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv). This clause is further modified by the following clause: “For purposes of clause (iv), an alien who is described in section 237(a)(4)(B) [governing terrorist activities] shall be considered to be an alien with respect to whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).
1. CAT. We defer to the Board's holding that the petitioners' acts within the United States could be qualified as terrorist activity. Full relief under CAT is barred. We affirm the Board's holding that the petitioners may not be deported to the country where they are likely to be tortured. We recognize that this respite from torture is limited if the consequence is that a petitioner is deliberately detained in custody in this country. To be offered indefinite imprisonment as an alternative to likely torture is to be offered a harsh choice.
2. Withholding of deportation. The question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that there are “reasonable grounds” for regarding Cheema and Rajwinder Kaur as dangers to our national security. The Board chose the first criterion of national security, that is, whether either Cheema or his wife “endangers the lives, property, or welfare of United States citizens.” The Board did not address the alternative criteria relating to national defense or foreign relations and economic interests. Our review is limited to the Board's stated grounds for the national security finding. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). Our task is to consider whether this conclusion is supported by the requisite substantial evidence.
Saying that the conclusion is self-evident begs the question that the statute requires to be answered. Under the Board's rationale, the requirement of evidence that an alien presents a danger to our national security evaporates. The Board has collapsed the two prongs of the inquiry, focusing entirely on the question of terrorist activity. This Board's approach is an end-run around the very result the Board urges as the appropriate interpretation of AEDPA § 421(a): namely, that an alien who is excludable under one of the designated provisions is not “necessarily” ineligible for asylum without first determining that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien to be a danger to national security. This approach also makes superfluous the other two prongs of the Board's own national security definition.
The Board's analysis as to Rajwinder Kaur is even more deficient than with respect to Cheema. The only evidence in the record regarding Rajwinder Kaur's donations or activities is a single admission that she had “sent money on one or two occasions to ․ women ․ that were widowed or to children that were orphaned.” Absolutely no evidence supplies a link between the donations and any specific organization, let alone Sikh militant organizations. Given that the Board accepted Rajwinder Kaur's testimony as credible, the Board's conclusion that Rajwinder Kaur's donations to Indian widows and orphaned children “obviously” and “inherently” posed a danger to the security of the United States stretches logic to its breaking point. If Rajwinder Kaur's one or two donations to unspecified widows and orphaned children are, without more, a reasonable basis to conclude that she posed a danger to the security of the United States, it is difficult to imagine that any alien could ever take refuge within the “danger to the United States” exception.
The Board cannot bypass the second prong of the statutory inquiry by asserting that its conclusions are “self-evident.” See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995); cf. Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.2002) (Board's failure to provide requisite individual assessment warrants reversal). It is by no means self-evident that a person engaged in extra-territorial or resistance activities-even militant activities-is necessarily a threat to the security of the United States. One country's terrorist can often be another country's freedom-fighter. The Contras in Nicaragua, for instance, used terrorist tactics in an attempt to overthrow the ruling Sandinista government. It would be difficult to conclude, however, without specific evidence, that supporters of the Contras within the United States compromised national defense. The United States itself opposed the Sandinista regime and sent money to assist the Contras. Similarly, the Solidarity Movement that was instrumental in ending Communism in Eastern Europe was labeled by the Soviet Union as subversive and dangerous, but it can hardly be said that contributors to the Solidarity Movement posed a threat to the lives and property in the United States. We cannot conclude automatically that those individuals who are activists for an independent Tibet are necessarily threats to the United States because they have been labeled by China as insurgents. Without further evidence, it does not follow that an organization that might be a danger to one nation is necessarily a danger to the security of the United States.
As no evidence supports the Board's conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for regarding Cheema and Rajwinder Kaur as dangers to our national security, we grant their petitions for withholding of deportation. As a consequence, they cannot be held in custody.
3. Asylum. The question here is whether, in the discretion of the Attorney General, there are not “reasonable grounds” for finding Cheema and his wife to be dangers to our national security. The question, it might well be thought, is answered by our holding that the Board found no evidence to support its denial of withholding. The statute, however, inserts a subtle distinction. The determination here is to be made by the Board in the exercise of the discretion the statute has conferred upon the Attorney General. The determination is a negative one: there are not reasonable grounds for finding Cheema and Rajwinder Kaur to be a danger to our national security. As the Board did not reach the exercise of its discretion, we remand so that it may do so. The discretion to be exercised is, of course, not that of a despot. The Board may not use its discretion to issue a decision that is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.1996). The Board must provide an objective basis for its holding. Rodriguez-Matamoros v. INS, 86 F.3d 158, 161 (9th Cir.1996). We will not deny the Board the opportunity to make this judgment.
For the reasons stated, the petitions for withholding of deportation are GRANTED; the petitions for asylum are REMANDED; the petitions for full relief under CAT are DENIED and the deferral of removal AFFIRMED.
Our review of asylum rulings made by the BIA has been curtailed in recent years. We may now reverse BIA's factual findings made in the context of ruling on an asylum application only if a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003). We must also defer to the BIA's interpretation of immigration law. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 315 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.2003).
•The State Department has identified the Khalistan Commando Force (KCF), headed by Paramjit Singh Panjwar, and the Sikh Student Federation Faction (SSF) headed by Daljit Singh Bittu, as “terrorist Sikh organizations.”
• These organizations have engaged in robbery, murder, bombings, kidnappings, threats and general mayhem.
• Bittu has variously been sought for the assassination of relatives of India's Vice-President, the assassination of an Indian Army General, and the largest bank robbery in India's history.
• Bittu distributed weapons to various terrorist organizations, after receiving money from a source in the United States.
• The KCF has taken responsibility for a massacre of bus passengers, who were machine-gunned after the bus was forced from the road, and for a series of car bombings that left 300 dead and 1,200 injured.
• Panjwar and Bittu are described by the Petitioner, Cheema, as close personal friends on whose behalf he has raised thousands of dollars in the United States.
• Cheema has acted as a communications link to Bittu and Panjwar by routing telephone calls through his home in the United States, and thereby avoid detection by Indian authorities.
• Cheema served as a communications link during the kidnapping of the Romanian ambassador by Sikh terrorists.
• Cheema provided food and shelter to terrorists while they were fugitives from the police.
• Cheema's wife functioned in his stead during his absence.