Opinion ID: 8407614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CoNventiok Against ToRtuRe Claim

Text: 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Unless a treaty is self-executing, however, it does not, in and of itself, create individual rights that can give rise to habeas relief. See, e.g., Columbia Marine Services, Inc. v. Reffet, Ltd., 861 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1988) (“An action arises under a treaty only when the treaty expressly or by implication provides for a private right of action. The treaty must be self-executing; i.e., it must prescribe rules by which private rights may be determined.” (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)); Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1976) (“It is only when a treaty is self-executing, when it proscribes rules by which private rights may be determined, that it may be relied upon for the enforcement of such rights.”). Wang concedes, as he must, that CAT is not a self-executing treaty. See 136 Cong. Rec. S17486-01 (daily ed. Oct. 27, 1990) (statement of Sen. Terry Sanford), 1990 WL 168442 (Oct. 27, 1990) (rendering the advice and consent of the Senate in ratifying CAT subject to the declaration that “the provisions of Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing”); see also S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), at 2 (letter of transmittal from the President of the United States, recommending that the Senate adopt the accompanying CAT along with “a declaration that the Convention is not self-executing”). Instead, he argues that, by authorizing the Attorney General to promulgate regulations implementing the United States’ obligations under CAT, FARRA creates individual rights based on CAT that may be enforced by a writ of habeas corpus. But, as the Government notes, FARRA expressly states that [notwithstanding any other provision of law, ... nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims under the Convention or this section ... except as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. [§ ]1252). FARRA § 2242(d), 112 Stat. 2681-822 (1988) (emphasis added). Wang argues that this restrictive language is insufficient to repeal habeas jurisdiction with respect to the rights created by FARRA. The District Court agreed, citing, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). In St. Cyr, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and IIRIRA, see AEDPA § 440(d), 110 Stat. 1277; IIRIRA § 304(b), 110 Stat. 3009-597, which prevent certain classes of aliens from obtaining judicial review of their removal orders, do not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to consider challenges by such aliens to their removal orders raised in § 2241 habeas petitions. The Court held that “[ijmplications from statutory text or legislative history are not sufficient to repeal habeas jurisdiction; instead, Congress must articulate [a] specific and unambiguous statutory directive to effect a repeal.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 299, 121 S.Ct. 2271. Because AEDPA and IIRIRA only expressly repeal “judicial review” or “jurisdiction to review” generally, and do not explicitly mention habeas corpus jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that they did not repeal § 2241 jurisdiction. In particular, even though § 401(e) of AEDPA is entitled “Elimination of Custody Review by Habeas Corpus,” the Court found that this provision was insufficient to repeal § 2241 jurisdiction because “[njeither the title nor the text makes any mention of 28 U.S.C. '§ 2241.” Id. at 308-09, 121 S.Ct. 2271. Similarly, the Court held that, because “[njeither [relevant provision of IIR-IRA] explicitly mentions habeas, or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ... neither provision speaks with sufficient clarity to bar jurisdiction pursuant to the general habeas statute.” 533 U.S. at 312, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision in St. Cyr makes clear that a statute must, at a minimum, explicitly mention either “habeas corpus” or “28 U.S.C. § 2241” in order to limit or restrict § 2241 jurisdiction. Because FARRA does not expressly mention either “habeas corpus” or “28 U.S.C. § 2241,” it does not meet the requirements set forth in St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 299, 308-09, 312, 121 S.Ct. 2271, for the elimination of § 2241 jurisdiction. See Cornejo-Barreto v. Seifert, 218 F.3d 1004, 1016 n. 13 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that “[tjhe FARR Act of 1998 did not limit habeas corpus review” because “[ajny limitation of federal habeas corpus must be by express command” and FARRA makes “no mention of habeas corpus review” (internal citations and quotation marks omit ted)).' The District Court was therefore correct to hold that it had jurisdiction to consider Wang’s CAT claims. 16 In reaching this conclusion, we are able to avoid serious constitutional concerns that would be raised if FARRA prohibited petitioners from bringing CAT claims in § 2241 petitions. FARRA § 2242(d) only permits review of claims for CAT relief “as part of the review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. [§ ]1252).” INA § 242 permits aliens who have been ordered removed by the immigration court to petition federal Courts of Appeals for review of their removal orders. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252. But such review is prohibited for certain classes of criminal aliens, including those who have been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Accordingly, absent habeas review, aggravated felons like Wang have no opportunity to seek review in federal court of INS decisions denying them CAT relief. In Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 232 F.3d 328, 342-3 (2d Cir.2000), aff'd, 533 U.S. 348, 121 S.Ct. 2268, 150 L.Ed.2d 392 (2001), we addressed whether, following the implementation of IIRIRA, federal courts maintained habeas jurisdiction over challenges brought by aggravated felons to executive removal orders. We held that [w]ithout habeas jurisdiction to review final orders, there is currently no judicial review at all of a removal order issued against a non-citizen who is ordered removable because he or she committed a certain crime. Because habeas jurisdiction is constitutionally required where -the immigration laws have been interpreted to bar other forms, of judicial review, under § 242(a)(2)(C), our decision that habeas review remains for a criminal alien’s legal challenge to his or her deportation order obviates the profound constitutional questions that would arise if we concluded that all judicial review had been eradicated [by IIR-IRA]. Id. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that “leaving aliens without a forum ... would raise serious constitutional . questions.” 533 U.S. at 351, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Similarly, in St Cyr, the Supreme Court noted that “[a] construction of [AEDPA and IIRIRA] that would entirely preclude review of a pure question of law by any court would give rise to substantial constitutional questions.” 533 U.S. at 300,121 S.Ct. 2271. Because, under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in St Cyr, FARRA does not speak with sufficient clarity to exclude CAT'claims from § 2241 jurisdiction, we are able to avoid the serious constitutional concerns that would have arisen if FARRA had explicitly excluded CAT claims from § 2241: 17 In sum, federal courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to consider claims arising under CAT, as implemented by FARRA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 18
Even if we have habeas jurisdiction over CAT claims generally, the Government argues that Wang’s claims do not fall within the scope of our review. In particular, it asserts that AEDPA and IIRIRA have limited the scope of habeas review of removal orders to purely legal questions of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, it maintains that we may not consider Wang’s CAT claim because it “essentially challenge^] the factual determinations made by .the BIA and Immigration Judge.” Gov’t Br. at 38. We disagree. Wang does not merely contest the immigration court’s factual determinations-—-he challenges its application of the facts to FARRA and the regulations adopted pursuant to FARRA. In St Cyr, the Supreme Court recognized that the Suspension Clause requires habeas review of claims based upon the erroneous application of statutes. 19 The Court explained that “at the absolute minimum, the Suspension Clause protects the writ as it existed in 1789,” 533 U.S. at 301, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), and at that time the use of the writ “encompassed detentions based on errors of law, including the erroneous application or interpretation of statutes,” id. at 302 (emphasis added). In Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 119 (2d Cir.1998), we concluded that IIRIRA and AEDPA were “intended to make [] administrative decisions [regarding removal] nonreviewable to the fullest extent possible under the Constitution.” Id. at 119 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). But, because the Constitution requires habeas review to extend to claims of erroneous application or interpretation of statutes, St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 302, 121 S.Ct. 2271, neither AEDPA nor IIRIRA could have excluded such claims from the scope of habeas review. Accordingly, Wang’s argument on appeal challenging the BIA’s application of the particular facts in this case to the relevant law falls within the permissible scope of habeas review.
The BIA expressly stated that it did “not affirm the Immigration Judge’s decision on the basis of an adverse credibility finding.” BIA Decision at 2. Instead, it denied Wang’s CAT claim because “there is no evidence in the record that China tortures deserters from its military.” Id. at 6. This determination is not simply a factual finding — it is based upon an application of the facts to the legal standard set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 208.16. See section 1(A), ante. Since the enactment of AEDPA and IIRIRA, we have not had occasion to articulate a standard for reviewing, in a § 2241 habeas setting, an application of facts to law by the BIA. The District Court applied a deferential, “substantial evidence” standard of review. Wang, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21245, at . However, in addressing a direct petition for review of a decision of the BIA “[w]hen the situation presented is the BIA’s application of legal principles to undisputed facts, rather than its underlying determination of those facts or its interpretation of its governing statutes, our review of the BIA’s asylum and withholding of deportation determinations is de novo.” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Athough the standard of review of a BIA’s decision in a habeas case is generally more limited than on direct review, Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 236, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972 (1953), in this case we need not decide the precise standard to adopt for reviewing a BIA’s application of law to fact pursuant to a § 2241 petition: Even if our standard of review pursuant to § 2241 affords no more deference to the BIA than on direct review — in other words, even if our review here is de novo — we find no error in the BIA’s analysis. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2), Wang bore the burden of proving that, as a result of his military desertion, he is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to China. The BIA held that Wang failed to meet this burden because, “[i]n this case, there is no evidence in the record that China tortures deserters from its military.” BIA Decision at 6. We agree. Wang submitted no evidence that military deserters generally are tortured in China. Instead, Wang relies upon his own anecdotal testimony regarding the following allegations: (1) that he was beaten for his first desertion attempt, (2) that he was told he would be beaten to death if he deserted again, (3) that he was likely to be imprisoned if returned to China, and (4) that persons he knew had not fared well in Chinese prisons. But this testimony is not sufficient to establish that Wang is “more likely than not” to be tortured if returned to China. 20 Imprisonment of military deserters does not inherently constitute torture. And, while Wang’s testimony as well as some of his “country conditions” documents (see Note 12, ante) indicate that some prisoners in China have been tortured, Wang has in no way established that someone in his particular alleged circumstances is more likely than not to be tortured if imprisoned in China. 21 Moreover, although the BIA was bound to consider any past torture inflicted upon Wang by Chinese officials, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3), Wang failed to establish that his alleged previous beating was anything more than a deviant practice carried out by one rogue military official. And there is no evidence in the record that Wang would be placed under the supervision of that same lieutenant if returned to China. For this same reason, Wang has failed to establish that his lieutenant’s alleged threat that he would be beaten to death if he deserted again is more likely than not to be carried out upon his return. In sum, none of the evidence relied upon by Wang establishes that he is more likely than not to be tortured if returned to China, and, like the BIA and the District Court, “[without more specific evidence, we are not persuaded by [Wang]’s arguments.” BIA Decision at 6; see also Wang, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21245, at -19. Wang argued before the District Court that the BIA erred by holding that military discipline can never constitute “torture” under CAT. As the District Court properly determined, this argument radically misconstrued the holding of the BIA. Id. at . Because Wang does not advance this particular argument on appeal, however, we need not address it in depth. On appeal, Wang asserts that the BIA erred because it imposed a heavier burden of proof on CAT applicants who claim to have been tortured in the context of military discipline. But in making this argument, Wang misconstrues the BIA’s opinion. The BIA stated: We do not question the respondent’s evidence that there has been torture in China, nor do we question his characterizations of that torture. However, ... there is no evidence in the record that China tortures deserters from its military ... [and] we are hesitant to ascribe general conditions to the specific condition of a military deserter. Furthermore, we are hesitant to ascribe the respondent’s characterization of torture to military discipline without more specific evidence. Id. This language makes clear that the BIA did not impose a heavier burden in the context of military discipline. Instead, the BIA declined to extend Wang’s evidence of torture by the government of China in other contexts to the specific context of military discipline, and it denied Wang CAT relief because he presented no evidence that the Chinese government tortures military deserters in particular. Accordingly, the BIA properly held that Wang failed to show that, if returned to China, he is more likely than not to be tortured as a result of his military desertion.