Opinion ID: 2610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Second Appeal to the BIA

Text: Ali filed a timely appeal with the BIA. He contended that IJ Vomacka had again failed to give sufficient deference to the proceedings before IJ Iskra, thereby violating the law of the case doctrine and his right to due process. Ali also argued that IJ Vomacka failed to develop an adequate record as to country conditions in Guyana, that he applied the wrong standard of law, that he failed to consider all the record evidence, that he displayed bias during the proceedings, and that he made a clearly erroneous credibility finding. The BIA disagreed. In a March 27, 2006 decision  which like the 2005 decision was a single board member decision (this one written by board member Lauri S. Filppu)  the BIA concluded that all of Ali's claims were meritless. See In re Peter Conrad Ali, No. A 39 105 177 (B.I.A. Mar. 27, 2006). The BIA held that the law of the case argument failed because the regulations required IJ Vomacka to conduct a new hearing and make a de novo determination. Further, IJ Vomacka allowed Ali to make an entirely new claim fear of torture because of sexual orientation  so IJ Iskra's factual findings could not have controlled. The BIA also found that Ali's challenge to IJ Vomacka's adverse credibility determination failed because that determination was supported by material inconsistencies between Ali's testimony and his written statements, as well as implausible details in his story. As for Ali's charge of bias, the BIA was troubled by several of [IJ Vomacka's] gratuitous remarks and speculations  namely, his lengthy speculation about the respondent's lack of social skills and the fact that it would be unlikely that he would be able to establish an open homosexual relationship in Guyana  but it did not find that any of IJ Vomacka's comments rendered the hearing unfair. The BIA also made its own assessment of the merits of Ali's claim and concluded that he had failed to carry his burden. Nothing in the record indicates that criminal deportees have been harmed or tortured by Guyanese authorities, and Ali failed to show that violence towards homosexuals in Guyana (of which there was evidence) would rise to the level of torture or would occur by or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials.