Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/211537/Alberto-Gonzales-Files-vls-law-villanova-edu-041762np
Timestamp: 2016-09-28 23:40:27
Document Index: 618691025

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1252', '§ 271', '§ 1546', '§ 1252', '§ 1101', '§ 208']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreNOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUITNo. 04-1762
MOHAMMAD SHABIR KHAN, Petitioner v. ALBERTO GONZALES,* Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Agency No. A76-506-061
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 7, 2005
(Opinion Filed:May 11, 2005)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the original respondent in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c).
BARRY, Circuit Judge Mohammad Shabir Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this Court for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and will deny the petition. I. Khan arrived in the U.S. Virgin Islands on or around October 8, 2000, without valid entry documents. A Notice to Appear was issued by the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service on March 27, 2001.1 On October 11, 2001, Khan filed an I-589 Form requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). At a pre-merits hearing, he conceded removability.2 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all of Khan’s applications for relief and ordered him returned to Pakistan. Khan appealed to the BIA, which affirmed without opinion. This timely petition followed. II. Because we write only for the parties, we limit our factual discussion to those events relevant to the instant disposition. According to Khan, he left Pakistan on December 28, 1999 and went to Dubai, where he stayed for four months. After he left
The Department of Homeland Security now oversees the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. See 6 U.S.C. § 271 (2002). The first two pre-merits hearings took place in the Virgin Islands, although the second was conducted, over the phone, by the Immigration Judge from her chambers in San Juan, PR. The case was then transferred to Newark, New Jersey, for all further proceedings. 2
Dubai, he went to Cuba for two weeks, and from there to Panama and, finally, to St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Soon after Khan arrived in St. Thomas, he attempted to board a flight to Miami, Florida, and was apprehended. When apprehended, he had in his possession a fraudulent visa and misrepresented his status to the authorities. He subsequently pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) and was sentenced to time served. In his I-589, Khan claimed that his membership in the United Kashmir People’s National Party (“ UKNP”) caused him to be persecuted because, in his words, “the party . . . wants the freedom of Kashmere (sic), and the government of . . . Kashmere (sic) is [a] Muslim government.” See A.128. Khan, who had traveled in and out of Pakistan at least three times between 1996 and 1999, claims that he fled the country in December of 1999 because he believed the police were going to arrest him after he gave a speech at a political meeting that advocated Kashmiri independence.3 He stated in his I-589 that he will be “arrested indefinitely, tortured, or killed” if he is returned to Pakistan. Id. at 200. III. Under any of the avenues of relief Khan is pursuing, he bears the burden of proof.
Khan added that he had also been targeted by the police for his political activities in June of 1996, although he had difficulty explaining the incident that gave rise to the police’s interest in him. He claimed to have been beaten three times with sticks after the police detained him, but did not require medical treatment. Later, in July of 1998, he was allegedly targeted again after apparently giving a speech on a “nuclear experiment” or “blast” at an outdoor assembly. He testified that he was detained for two days. 3
See Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2005); Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2003).4 If the IJ makes an adverse credibility determination, and orders the applicant removed for a failure of proof, as the IJ did here, we review that decision for substantial evidence.5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004) (explaining that an adverse credibility determination is a finding of fact, and therefore reviewable under the substantial evidence standard). In other words, the IJ’s determination must be upheld “unless no reasonable person would have found the applicant incredible.” Chen, 376 F.3d at 222. An IJ’s adverse credibility determination must be based on “specific[,] cogent reasons,” including “inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). The IJ based her determination that Khan was not credible on various parts of his testimony, including instances where he contradicted himself, gave vague answers, or was
To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must prove that he is unable or unwilling to return to, or seek the protection of, his country of origin because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Similarly, to secure a withholding of removal, an applicant must show that it is “more likely than not” that he will be subject to future persecution on one of the above-enumerated grounds. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Finally, for relief under the CAT, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he is removed to the designated country. See Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 182-83 (3d Cir. 2003).
When the BIA affirms without opinion, “the IJ’s opinion effectively becomes the BIA’s, and, accordingly, a court must review the IJ’s decision.” Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001).
unable to give logical responses. For example, despite the run-ins Khan claimed to have had with the police in 1996 and 1998, he rejoined UKNP activities after each incident, and presented no evidence that he suffered any repercussions for having done so. Additionally, Khan stated that the meeting he attended, which supposedly caused the police to seek his arrest and prompted his decision to flee, occurred on December 28, 1999; however, he later stated, and had earlier represented in his I-589, that he left Pakistan on December 4, 1999. His passport, we note, showed that he left the country on December 3, 1999.6 Furthermore, Khan claimed that the Pakistani government was pursuing him, but he had been able to travel in and out of Pakistan, without incident, for several years. Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that a reasonable person, when presented with statements such as the examples given above, would find Khan credible. Credibility aside, the IJ also found that Khan had not shown that he would be subjected to persecution or torture upon his return to Pakistan, or that he ever had been persecuted or tortured in the past. Although we do not question that there is much violence in the Kashmiri region, there is nothing in the record that supports Khan’s claim that he was persecuted by Pakistani officials, see Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d
When confronted with these inconsistencies, Khan revised his statement and testified that the meeting actually took place on December 2, 1999. See A160. He then attempted to explain away the discrepancies by stating that “I don’t remember because of the pressure and I was, I am not feeling good, so this is the date my friend got.” Id. This did not persuade the IJ, nor would it persuade any reasonable person. 5
Cir. 1993) (defining persecution as “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom”), or that he would be targeted for such persecution upon his return. This lack of proof is fatal to Khan’s asylum claim, which in turn is dispositive of his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. See Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 182 (3d Cir. 2003). For the forgoing reasons, we find that the decision of the IJ is supported by substantial evidence. We, therefore, deny the petition for review.
Alberto Gonzales Files - vls law villanova edu-041762npUploaded by politixLaw EnforcementPoliceImmigrationUnited States CodePersecutionPakistan1 viewsDownloadEmbedDescription: Files pertaining to US Attorney General Alberto GonzalesSee MoreFiles pertaining to US Attorney General Alberto GonzalesCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to Alberto Gonzales Files - vls law villanova edu-041762npHuman Rights and PakistanECHR Carissa Ann Marie Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 284 F.3d 1258, 11th Cir. (2002)The Pakistan CentrifugeArc Deported Parents FoiaSikiru Balogun v. United States Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 304 F.3d 1303, 11th Cir. (2002)Diones Graciano Navarro Reentry ComplaintThe man, our Hero, who made Pakistan an Atomic Power was house arrested, But, The American CIA Agent, who killed 4 Pakistani Citizens in LHR, has been freed!!!Introduction - 19787-3-13 Member Letter on Religious Violence in Pakistan (1)Ahmad Raza (Sr. Designer)Afghanistan- The Destabilization of PakistanReorienting US Pakistan StrategyEstella Ibonne Arrendono, A200 760 314 (BIA Feb. 9, 2015)New Microsoft Word DocumentChinaDEACC dog catcher physically attacks elderly manPak HistoryMuzzamil Ahmed PptBanking evolution in Pakistanfinal lahore.docxA Nation in ChainsMorning BuzzSponsor Guide App b From 060412Mission statement and its component7 Pakistan, An Islamic or Secular StateObjective TypeOffice Manager Reconsidering the Indus Waters TreatyEnglish 205 ProposalBooks similar to Alberto Gonzales Files - vls law villanova edu-041762npPolice State U.S.AA Toast to SilenceCleveland PoliceThe Boy Next DoorBoston PoliceA Walking Tour of Scranton, PennsylvaniaNo Man's LandA Police Force without a StateA Walking Tour of Carlisle, PennsylvaniaCop ShotLiving HistoryEavesdropping on EvilIdentity and the Second GenerationClaiming the Oriental GatewayA Shaw and Valentine MysteryThe Happening ManThe Thornton District SpecterEd King’s MississippiDeadlineSuperintendent Sharma Murder MysteriesHarvard Law ReviewLaw without Nations?Justice vs. LawUnanimous VerdictThe CourtroomYorkshire Ripper - The Secret MurdersElements of Nevada Legal TheoriesManual of LawSovereignty or SubmissionBooks about Law EnforcementMindhunterThe Anatomy Of MotiveDouble AgentImmigration WarsHomicideANNA KATHERINE GREEN Ultimate CollectionWhoever Fights MonstersCriminal InvestigationVerbal Judo, Second EditionMurder in BrentwoodLímites de participación criminal ¿Existe una prohibición de regreso como límite general del tipo en derecho penal?Unequal under LawThe Effective Security Officer's Training ManualEl objeto del dolo en derecho penalSecurity Operations ManagementVirtualization and ForensicsA Government of WolvesK9 Decoys and AggressionCartelK9 Scent TrainingThe Common LawEmergency Management and Tactical Response OperationsData Mining and Predictive AnalysisCriminal MindsAmexicaThe Red Hot TypewriterThe War on DrugsThe AnarchistOur Enemies in BlueThe Avenged (A Detective Series of Crime and Suspense Thrillers) (Book 1)Audiobooks about Law EnforcementBy Any MeansThe KeeperLast to DieBrokenTrunk MusicDead Run14Facing Down EvilTo Protect and ServeThe MotiveThe Cat DancersMy FBIThe Secrets of the FBIOutrageDamageThe Sting ManProbable CauseTwistedHot StuffNo WitnessesMost EvilJoe's LawThe Big GambleSummer of FearThe Last PolicemanNightlifeWhat It WasBear Is BrokenWrongly AccusedThe Hunt ClubDocuments about Law EnforcementBLM MemoThe Harmonised Jubilee Coalition Manifesto8-29-16Class Action Lawsuit20 years of ICRC in Liberia09-05-16 editionMumbai Traffic plan for VisarjanDassey - OrderDangers of “Ballot Security” OperationsKansas Maxmind ComplaintJ&K Interlocutors ReportWhat They'd Do With $75 Million...T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr- Entire ContentsSc Verdict on Article 377Abuse Standards 6.2 - Operation Manual2015 Overview and 2014 Annual ReportGhomeshi rulingEaster v. Los Angeles TimesCrime in 2015The Pivot of Civilization by Sanger, Margaret, 1883-1966Criminal complaint2015-2016 OPCC annual reportCommon Sense Rules of Advocacy for Lawyers, Softcover, by Keith EvansPeters v. Easter ComplaintMilitary POW Camp BuildingsFifty Years of the Deep State"Think Tankers'" Brains Clogged With Medieval GookESPN Motion To DismissPreventive Medicine University of Chicago gun study August 2015Times Leader 03-17-2013Books about PoliceSail of StoneDevil's KnotHouse RulesAll That RemainsThe Broken WindowSexual HomicideThe Cases That Haunt UsRoom No. 10The Neon RainGreen River, Running RedLying in WaitAbsolute CertaintyFatal Friends, Deadly NeighborsThe Coffin DancerConvictionEl NarcoThe Day the World Came to TownJonBenetCop in the HoodOnce Taken (a Riley Paige Mystery--Book #2)The Girl in the IceArrest-Proof YourselfFive-minute Mysteries 5Hunter's WayMurder in BrentwoodVagos, Mongols, and OutlawsAudiobooks about PoliceThe Stolen OnesThe CompetitionDouble HomicideShe's Leaving HomePartner in CrimeDesignated DaughtersGun MachineThe Lawyer's LawyerThe Other Wes MooreGhettosideMissoulaThe Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's NestThe Good NurseThe Devotion of Suspect XSpecial AgentTrue Blue2nd ChanceThe Marco EffectThe Concrete BlondeFatal JealousyJack CafferyRoses Are RedMidnight RiotEcho ParkAngels FlightThe BatLaw of AttractionThe ConfessionDocuments about PoliceDangers of “Ballot Security” OperationsKansas Maxmind ComplaintJ&K Interlocutors ReportWhat They'd Do With $75 Million...T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr- Entire ContentsSc Verdict on Article 377Abuse Standards 6.2 - Operation Manual2015 Overview and 2014 Annual ReportGhomeshi rulingEaster v. Los Angeles TimesCrime in 2015The Pivot of Civilization by Sanger, Margaret, 1883-1966Criminal complaint2015-2016 OPCC annual reportCommon Sense Rules of Advocacy for Lawyers, Softcover, by Keith EvansPeters v. Easter ComplaintMilitary POW Camp BuildingsFifty Years of the Deep State"Think Tankers'" Brains Clogged With Medieval GookESPN Motion To DismissPreventive Medicine University of Chicago gun study August 2015Times Leader 03-17-2013Books about ImmigrationAsk Me No QuestionsJust Like UsAmerican Born ChineseCrossing the WireBecoming Dr. QSaffron DreamsUnsettledAdios, AmericaAmerican on PurposeLife in the UK TestHow to Get a Green CardDiasporasThe Politics of BelongingImmigrationOne Out of ThreeBrain GainImmigrant AmericaHow to Move to CanadaGuarding the Golden DoorThe New DestroyerThe Accidental AmericanThe Immigration Law SourcebookBoundariesContemporary Migration to South AfricaUseful EnemiesDividing LinesExceptional PeopleWhatever It TakesVisas for the United StatesAudiobooks about ImmigrationA Different MirrorOutcasts UnitedRussian Debutante's HandbookBreaking ThroughFactory GirlsImmigration Naturalization TestReturn to SenderA Personal StandA Country for AllJoe's LawState of EmergencyThe First VictimThe SnakeheadThe SnakeheadAmerican BlendCoyoteThe Beautiful Things That Heaven BearsDenied, Detained, Deported