Opinion ID: 3052204
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We, we Christians like to go to private doctors

Text: outside, in particular to a hospital named Victoria (phonetic sp.). All the Christians in Kafr El Dawar go there because this hospital is prepared by our 7436 MORGAN v. MUKASEY churches and with our love and nobody there is going to hurt us. If you have a small wound or something, you will go to anything close to you. Nobody goes to public hospital at all. Q. Do you mean you did not seek medical atten- tion after you were sexually assaulted in prison? A. I was treated at a doctor. Q. Where? A. In Kafr El Dawar, a Christian in town. Q. So, then, you did receive medical treatment after you were sexually assaulted from a doctor. Is that what you’re saying? A. Yeah, he gave me tranquilizers and, I mean, my situation was really bad. Emotionally I was very bad and, and there was blood in the anus. I mean, I don’t want to get into details. It’s really bad. Q. How long was it after you were released that you saw this doctor? A. Approximately the same day, my father took me the same day. [3] The immigration judge, showing singular insensitivity to Morgan’s suffering, has speculated as to what Morgan’s condition required and ignored his consistent statements as to the medical attention he received from a family doctor. The prosecutor’s threat. The immigration judge cites Mor- gan’s written declaration that after his acquittal of rape, “the MORGAN v. MUKASEY 7437 prosecutor told me to my face” that he wouldn’t escape again. Testifying in court, Morgan stated this threat was delivered to his attorney. The immigration judge finds an inconsistency. The immigration judge has misstated Morgan’s declaration, which reads, “the prosecutor told me to my face that you are set free this time, we will see . . . followed by murmured words I did not understand in a low level voice, but in a threatening way.” Testifying, Morgan (A) had this exchange with the immigration judge (Q): Q. What do you — do you mean that you learned of the prosecutor’s threat through your attorney? A. Yes. Q. Did you speak with the prosecutor after the case was over? A. No. Q. You’re sure about that, sir? A. Yes. Q. All right. Sir, your statement says, “At the time of my release, the prosecutor told me to my face that, ‘You’re set free this time, but we will see.’ ” Now sir, it sounds to me from that statement that you were indicating that you did speak with the prosecutor directly. A. I could hear something, but the attorney came and attested to what I heard. Q. So, it’s not as your statement provides, sir, that you were told these things to your face by the prosecutor? 7438 MORGAN v. MUKASEY A. I was behind bars and he said it in front of all the people. He said five, six words and I heard one of them and my attorney assured me that this is what he said because he was close to him. [4] The difference between the declaration and Morgan’s testimony is impalpable. The kidnaping of Miriam. Morgan’s declaration stated that “three men jumped from the vehicle” and that they kidnaped Miriam and the children. Miriam testified, “We were walking like this and suddenly three came out. They carried us and put us in the car.” On cross-examination: Government lawyer: How many actually grabbed you? You said two earlier. Miriam: They were three. All of them were stand- ing outside and, when we approached, the driver got behind the wheel to get himself ready, and the two grabbed us and put us in the van. Government lawyer: But your application says that three men jumped from the vehicle. Miriam: I don’t know. This is what I recall. [5] There is a difference between men jumping out of the car and men waiting. Recollecting an event that took place seven years earlier, Miriam admitted an inability to be exact about what was a trivial element of her traumatic experience. [6] Telephone conversations with the kidnapers. The immigration judge observed that Morgan’s written declaration describes three phone calls with his wife when she was in the hands of the kidnapers. Miriam testified that she spoke on the MORGAN v. MUKASEY 7439 phone only twice. The difference, significant in the eyes of the immigration judge, is immaterial. Miriam’s medical treatment. Morgan’s written declaration stated that after his wife’s release from the kidnapers, “we stopped at home briefly and then I took them to a doctor.” At the hearing the immigration judge questioned Morgan as fol- lows: Q. And Dr. Sultan was at your home when your wife got back. Is that right? A. At the last session you did not believe me because the treatment took place at the clinic, but I’m explaining to you like this because I want to get you to the truth because I realize last time you were not believing me. The doctor was at home but, then he continued my wife’s treatment in the clinic. The last time you asked me, where she was treated I told you the clinic but, in the case I did not write the details exactly. Q. I noticed that, sir.