Opinion ID: 792148
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hamdan's Application for Adjustment of Status6

Text: 8 The IJ held a second hearing, this time on Hamdan's adjustment of status application, on December 21, 2001. At the hearing, Hamdan testified that he entered the U.S. in 1993 on a student visa but did not attend the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee as promised in his visa application. He explained that he had several family members legally residing in the U.S., that he had maintained sporadic periods of employment since his arrival in 1993, and that he had obtained an associate degree in Applied Science from the Milwaukee Area Technical College in 1999. In addition, Hamdan disclosed that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He testified that on one occasion his family called the police and had him hospitalized for seven weeks due to his mental illness. Although he was taking medication for his disorder, he testified that he was admitted to the hospital because his medication was ineffective, causing him to act out. When pressed on cross examination for more details on why he was hospitalized, Hamdan only reiterated that it was due to the inadequacy of his medication. He further revealed that, while hospitalized, he was arrested after he broke a window and attempted to escape. 9 On cross examination by the government, Hamdan declared that he had no political affiliation at all, a statement which directly contravened his previous testimony at the asylum hearing when he claimed membership in an unidentified anti-Jordanian political organization. Hamdan also admitted that, when he entered the country on a student visa in 1993, he had no money and knew that his uncle did not intend to pay for his education. 10 Following the government's questioning of the petitioner, the IJ asked Hamdan some follow-up questions. He questioned him about the procurement of his second student visa in 1993, and Hamdan admitted that his first priority in obtaining the visa was to leave Jordan, not to attend school. The judge then asked if he was hospitalized after his first arrival in the U.S. in 1984. After Hamdan said that he had not been hospitalized, the judge asked if he recalled testifying during his December of 1999 hearing that he had been hospitalized during his initial visit. In response, Hamdan changed his previous answer and acknowledged that he had been hospitalized for seven to ten days in 1984, shortly after his first entry into the U.S., because he had experienced hallucinations. 11 Next, the IJ asked Hamdan to explain the inconsistency between his position at the asylum hearing that he was detained because he criticized the political situation in Jordan and his testimony during the adjustment of status hearing that he had no political opinion. During his asylum hearing, Hamdan repeatedly claimed he was persecuted on account of his political opinion. Then, on direct examination at his adjustment of status hearing, Hamdan's attorney had asked, [D]o you have any type of membership in or any connection with any kinds of organizations? Hamdan replied, I have no political affiliation at all. 7 Following his direct and cross examinations, the judge asked Hamdan to clarify his statement that he had no political affiliation, inquiring, [S]o are you saying that you never in any way opposed the Jordanian government when you lived in Jordan prior to 1993? In response, Hamdan stated, I did not oppose, no. I just was objecting — used to object to the internal conditions in Jordan — [ ]living conditions, unemployment, taxes imposed, and this has nothing to do with politics. 8 The judge reminded Hamdan of his testimony at his asylum hearing that he was mistreated by Jordanian authorities because of his political opinion, but Hamdan denied making this prior statement and explained, I wasn't talking about the politics — political situation. I was talking about the economic situation, but sometimes politics and the economy intertwine. He went on to testify: I wasn't talking about political situation in Jordan, only about the internal situation in Jordan because we were supposed to receive assistance. We didn't get the assistance and things like these, but I don't criticize the government of Jordan. After this disconcerting line of questioning, the judge concluded his inquiry and continued the hearing to receive more information from Hamdan regarding his psychiatric history, diagnosis, and progress. 12 On March 22, 2002, the IJ denied Hamdan's request for adjustment of status. The judge found that Hamdan's relationship with his U.S. citizen mother and other family members as well as his having obtained an associate degree favored the relief sought. Despite these factors in Hamdan's favor, he ultimately concluded that Hamdan's application presented significantly more adverse factors that out-weighed the equitable considerations. The judge noted Hamdan's mental health history as a matter of concern, especially given his lengthy hospitalization and recent arrest. He also determined that Hamdan had engaged in a clear pattern of immigration abuse in obtaining a student visa without any intention of actually initiating or completing a program of study at the university where he promised immigration authorities he would enroll. In addition, the judge expressed his view that, in light of the testimony Hamdan had given at his adjustment hearing, his 1997 claim for asylum now appeared suspect and might have been filed for the sole purpose of delaying his removal proceedings until he became eligible to adjust his status. In support of this view, the judge noted his earlier finding that Hamdan failed to offer any objective evidence at his asylum hearing to support his application. The judge also pointed out the contradiction between Hamdan's position at the asylum hearing that he was politically active in opposing the Jordanian government's treatment of Kuwaiti Palestinians and his statement at the adjustment of status hearing denying that he had any political affiliation or opinion that opposed the Jordanian government. The IJ stated that although Hamdan may not have fabricated his testimony at the asylum hearing, his 1997 asylum application now appeared to be frivolous in the sense that it had no merit and was not intended really to obtain political asylum but rather to enable the respondent to stay in the United States until his mother was naturalized. The judge determined, based on the testimony presented at the adjustment of status hearing, that when Hamdan left Jordan he was not fleeing persecution of any kind [but] was simply engaging in a very common practice of using deception to obtain a visa for an alleged purpose which he had no intention of complying with. Finding that Hamdan's presence in the United States since 1993 is almost entirely based on deception, the IJ denied Hamdan's application for adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion, denied his request for voluntary departure, and ordered that he be removed to Jordan. 13 Hamdan appealed the decision to the BIA, and on October 23, 2003, the BIA affirmed without opinion the IJ's decision, making the IJ's decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). On November 24, 2003, Hamdan filed a petition for review with this court as well as a motion to reconsider with the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). In his motion to reconsider, Hamdan argued that (1) the BIA should not have used its streamlining rule to dispose of his appeal, 9 (2) the IJ violated the principle of res judicata when, after finding Hamdan's testimony at his asylum hearing credible for the purposes of that analysis, he determined at his adjustment of status hearing that Hamdan's asylum application had been frivolous, and (3) the IJ violated his due process rights by aggressively questioning Hamdan during the adjustment of status hearing. On February 24, 2004, the BIA denied the motion to reconsider in a per curiam order, finding that no error of fact or law existed in its earlier decision. On March 1, 2004, Hamdan filed a second petition for review of the BIA's decision, and on March 3, 2004, we consolidated the petitions for review.