Opinion ID: 3065093
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of the Asylum and Withholding Claims

Text: Both the asylum and withholding of removal claim turn on whether the JKLF is a terrorist organization, and on whether Khan knew or should have known that it was a terrorist organization. We discuss these questions in turn.
As we noted above, the JKLF is a “terrorist organization” under the INA if it committed, planned, solicited funds for, solicited individuals for, or provided material support for “a terrorist activity.” Khan seeks to limit the definition of “terrorist activity” in a manner that might exclude the JKLF from the definition of a “terrorist organization.” Khan argues that the definition of “terrorist activity” under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii) incorporates international law, and thus excludes legitimate armed resistance against military targets from the definition of “terrorist activity.” Under Khan’s proposed definition, actions that are illegal under the laws of the regime in power in the alien’s country of origin are “unlawful” within the meaning of § 1108(a)(3)(B)(iii) only if these actions violate the international law of armed conflict. We hold that this is not a permissible reading of the statute.
[5] We begin with the text of the statute. As noted above, § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii) defines “terrorist activity” to include various violent acts that are “unlawful under the laws of the place 12774 KHAN v. HOLDER where [they are] committed (or which, if [they] had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State).” The words “under the laws of the place where it is committed” directly modify the word “unlawful,” such that “unlawful” does not just mean generically unlawful, but rather “unlawful” in this specific sense. This text is unambiguous, specifying that “unlawful” actions include actions that are unlawful in the place where they were committed. [6] Khan argues that the BIA’s reading of the statute is so broad that it includes within the definition of “terrorist activity” many actions that we generally do not consider to be terrorist in nature. For example, Khan argues that under the BIA’s reading, it would include armed resistance by Jews against the government of Nazi Germany. This may be true, but the text does not make an exception for actions that are lawful under international law. An action would be lawful within the meaning of § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii) if the law of the country in question incorporates international law such that the conduct in question is no longer “unlawful” under the country’s domestic law, but Khan has made no argument that that is the case here. We note that the statute includes a discretionary waiver of the terrorism bar for relief from removal that can be exercised by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Section 1182(d)(3)(B)(i) provides The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary’s sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) of this section shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of this section shall not KHAN v. HOLDER 12775 apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II) of this section, no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or repre- sentative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi) of this section, and no such waiver may be extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. This waiver weakens Khan’s argument that the BIA’s reading of the statutory language is overly broad, because the broad statutory definition is combined with a discretionary waiver by executive branch officials. These officials are in a position to judge the characteristics of particular groups engaging in armed resistance in their home countries, as well as the implications for our foreign relations in determining whether the actions of these groups are terrorist activities.
[7] Khan also argues that the international law obligations of the United States under the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Protocol”) compel a narrower definition of “terrorist activity.” 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 268 (Jan. 31, 1967). “The Protocol [binds] parties to comply with the substantive provisions of Articles 2 through 34 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [(“Refugee Convention”)] . . . with respect to ‘refugees’ defined in Article 1.2 of the Protocol.” INS v. 12776 KHAN v. HOLDER Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 416 (1984). Article 1.2 of the Protocol defines “refugee” as an individual who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. UN Protocol, Article 1.2 (relying on Refugee Convention, Article 1A(2)). The Refugee Convention excepts from coverage any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the interna- tional instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Refugee Convention, Article 1F, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (Jul. 28, 1951) (adopted in the Protocol, Article 1.2). The Refugee KHAN v. HOLDER 12777 Convention includes the duty of non-refoulement in Article 33.1, providing that No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Refugee Convention, Article 33.1. Article 33.2 of the Refugee Convention provides an exception from this duty: The benefit of the present provision may not, how- ever, be claimed by a refugee whom there are rea- sonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, hav- ing been convicted by a final judgement of a particu- larly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country. Refugee Convention, Article 33.2. Khan argues that Article 33.2 and Article 1F provide the only permissible grounds on which a country can refoul a refugee. Therefore, he contends that the INA’s terrorism bar to relief from removal can only apply to individuals who (1) have been implicated in a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity; (2) have committed a serious non-political crime; (3) have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes or principles of the United Nations; (4) may constitute a danger to the security of this country; or (5) having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitute a danger to the community. He argues that the IJ’s interpretation of “terrorist activity” covers actions that do not satisfy any of these five criteria, and that such a broad bar to relief from removal therefore violates the United States’ international obligations under the Protocol. 12778 KHAN v. HOLDER [8] The United States acceded to the Protocol in 1968, though it did not sign the Convention itself. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 416 & n.9. However, the Protocol is not self-executing. Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Stevic, 467 U.S. at 428 n.22). A “self-executing” treaty has “automatic domestic effect as federal law upon ratification. Conversely, a ‘non-self-executing’ treaty does not by itself give rise to domestically enforceable federal law.” Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346, 1356 n.2 (2008). Therefore, the Protocol does not have the force of law in American courts. Instead, the Supreme Court and our court have both stated that the Protocol “serves only as a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act” of 1980, which sought to bring United States refugee law into conformity with the Protocol. Barapind, 225 F.3d at 1106-07; see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987); Stevic, 467 U.S. at 428 n. 22; United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662, 680 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, P.L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, as stated in United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2002). [9] These cases do not discuss whether the Protocol is also a “useful guide” in interpreting provisions of the INA that were not enacted with the Protocol in mind, such as the terrorism bars to relief from removal. However, we follow the general rule of the Charming Betsy canon that “an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains.” Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804). Under Charming Betsy, we should interpret the INA in such a way as to avoid any conflict with the Protocol, if possible. Khan’s argument that the terrorism bar violates the obligations of the United States in the Protocol fails because the Protocol does not conflict with the INA’s definition of “terrorist activity.” The Protocol, through Refugee Convention Article 33.2, allows the United States to refoul an individual” whom there KHAN v. HOLDER 12779 are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security” of the United States. Neither the Refugee Convention nor the Protocol defines “danger to the security” of the United States. Relying on law review articles, publications of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and a Canadian Supreme Court opinion, Khan argues that the meaning of “danger to the security” must be limited in three ways. He contends that (1) “danger to the security” can only apply to individuals who pose a present danger to the United States; (2) the danger must be a serious threat to national security; and (3) the danger must be proved, not simply assumed. He further argues, using similar sources, that refoulement is an act of last resort that the United States can employ only after attempting to contain an individual’s danger to the country’s security through criminal prosecution or removal to a third country. [10] We disagree. We have already stated that “the determination of refugee status . . . is incumbent upon the Contracting State in whose territory the refugee finds himself.” Aguilar, 883 F.2d at 680 (quoting the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Geneva 1979), which “provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol” (internal quotations omitted)); see also Maximov v. United States, 373 U.S. 49, 53 (1963). The INA provides that “an alien who [has engaged in a terrorist activity] 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) (indirectly referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)). This definition, not that expressed in legal commentary or by the courts of other nations, controls in this court. Therefore, the INA’s definition of “terrorist activity” not only does not violate the Protocol, but adheres to its specific non-refoulement exception. [11] Even if it did conflict, the administrative discretion in the INA, § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(II), might resolve the conflict. In 12780 KHAN v. HOLDER Stevic, the Supreme Court held that, to the extent there were differences between American statutory refugee law and the Protocol, it was acceptable that such differences be accommodated by administrative discretion. Stevic, 467 U.S. at 428 n. 22.
[12] Given both the text of the statute and Khan’s failure to point to any binding international law which would alter our understanding of that text, we hold that the definition of “terrorist activity” under the INA does not provide an exception for armed resistance against military targets that is permitted under the international law of armed conflict. Our reading of the statute accords with the interpretation of both the BIA and the Third Circuit, which have both considered similar questions. In In re S-K-, 23 I & N Dec. 936 (BIA 2006), the petitioner had been a member of the Chin National Front (“CNF”), which was involved in armed struggle against the Burmese government and undisputedly had committed violent acts that were unlawful within Burma. Id. at 937-38. The petitioner argued, as Khan does here, that the definition of unlawful action as applied to certain regimes and in certain conflicts should not be based solely on the domestic laws of the country where the acts were committed, but should account for whether the regime is in fact “legitimate” under international law or norms. Id. at 938. The BIA rejected this argument, holding that the language in the statute was clear: As noted by the DHS during oral argument, the fact that Congress included exceptions elsewhere in the Act for serious nonpolitical offenses and aliens who have persecuted others, even where persecuted themselves, and that it has not done so in section 212(a)(3)(B), indicates that the omission of an exception for justifiable force was intentional. In fact, having reviewed the statutory sections, we find that Congress intentionally drafted the terrorist bars KHAN v. HOLDER 12781 to relief very broadly, to include even those people described as “freedom fighters,” and it did not intend to give us discretion to create exceptions for members of organizations to which our Government might be sympathetic. Rather, Congress attempted to balance the harsh provisions set forth in the Act with a waiver, but it only granted the power to make exemptions to the Attorney General and the Secre- taries of State and Homeland Security, who have not delegated such power to the Immigration Judges or the Board of Immigration Appeals. . . . [T]here is no exception in the Act to the bar to relief in cases involving the use of justifiable force to repel attacks by forces of an illegitimate regime. Id. at 941. We need not defer under Chevron because the text of the statute itself is unambiguous. Based on that fact, we agree with the BIA. In the only published applicable circuit opinion on this question, McAllister v. Attorney General, 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2006), the Third Circuit has also agreed, holding that the definition of “terrorist activity” under the INA does not contemplate international laws that distinguish between types of conflicts, purposes of resistance groups, and whether citizens were targeted. Id. at 187-88. [13] Under our reading of the statute, the IJ’s holding that the JKLF meets the definition of a “terrorist organization” is supported by substantial evidence. There is documentary evidence in the record, at least some of which is corroborated by Khan’s testimony, that members of the JKLF killed politicians, kidnapped the daughter of the Indian Home Minister, and attacked Indian Army convoys. Each of these activities constitutes “terrorist activity” under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the JKLF, during Khan’s affiliation with the organization, constituted a “terrorist organization” under the statute. 12782 KHAN v. HOLDER
Khan argues that, even if the JKLF was a terrorist organization, he did not know and should not have reasonably known this fact. Khan admitted that he knew that a wing of the JKLF was dedicated to armed struggle against the Indian government and that he knew that this wing was fighting the Indian Army. Attacks by dissidents on the military of a country constitute terrorist activity under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii). Additionally, the record contains many newspaper reports of terrorist attacks attributed to the JKLF. The IJ found these reports credible and that, given these reports, Khan had not demonstrated that he did not know and reasonably should not have known about the JKLF’s terrorist activities. For these reasons, the IJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.
[14] The IJ’s findings that the JKLF was a terrorist organization, that Khan solicited funds for the JKLF, and that Khan knew or reasonably should have known that the JKLF was a terrorist organization are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore decline to upset the BIA’s holding that Khan is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal.