Opinion ID: 3014440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: convicted of a violation of

Text: (or a conspiracy or attempt Bakhtriger entered the United to violate) any law or States in February 1993, from the former regulation of a State, the Soviet Republic of Moldova, his native United States, or a foreign country. He was granted the protection of country relating to a the United States as a refugee and became controlled substance (as a lawful permanent resident in April 1994. defined in section 802 of In April 1998, Bakhtriger was convicted of Title 21), other than a single possession of both cocaine base and heroin offense involving in the Court of Common Pleas in possession for one’s own Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Less use of 30 grams or less of than a year later, in January and February marijuana, is [removable]. of 1999, Bakhtriger was arrested for violating his probation, and sentenced to 2- 12 months imprisonment. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B). The INS Bakhtriger’s controlled substance initiated removal proceedings against conviction rendered him removable 1 under Bakhtriger on April 17, 2000. Before the 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which Immigration Judge (IJ), Bakhtriger did not provides: contest that he was an alien or that he had committed a removable offense. Rather, Bakhtriger applied for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1 Under recent amendments to the 1158, and relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term Convention Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § “removal” embraces concepts of both 1231. “deportation” and “exclusion.” See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Bakhtriger, through his own Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, testimony and that of his mother, Div. C, § 308, 110 Stat 3009-619. Saying attempted to show that he had a reasonable that Bakhtriger was “removable” is fear of persecution should he return to equivalent to saying that he was Moldova. The evidence presented by “deportable.” 2 Bakhtriger focused on his history of past “marking” the apartment as one in which religious persecution as a member of the Jews lived. Bakhtriger recounted that Jewish faith in Moldova, and his fears of during a recent trip back to Moldova he what might befall him if he should return. was attacked in public and a necklace bearing the Star of David was ripped from Bakhtriger’s mother recounted that his neck. her husband had been an officer in the Soviet army, but had been hampered in his The IJ credited the testimony of advancement as a result of his religion. both witnesses and found that Bakhtriger She also explained that Jews in Moldova had suffered past persecution. But the IJ were prevented from publicly practicing found that the INS had presented sufficient their religion. Both witnesses emphasized proof of “changed country conditions” in that anti-semitism was pervasive under the Moldova to rebut the presumption that old Soviet regime, and that the post-Soviet Bakhtriger had a well-founded fear of Moldovan government took no action to persecution. Even so, the IJ exercised his curb the open hostility emanating from discretion to grant asylum where the large segments of the public. applicant has “demonstrated compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to Other testimony indicated that, return to the country arising out of the while living in Moldova, Bakhtriger was severity of the past persecution.” 8 CFR § routinely harassed, called derogatory 208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). names, and physically beaten as a result of his religion. According to his mother, The INS appealed the IJ’s decision Bakhtriger was prevented from attending to the Board of Immigration Appeals any prestigious colleges or universities. (BIA). The BIA deferred to the IJ’s Instead, he was directed to a trade school determination that Bakhtriger and his to learn television repair. At this school, mother were credible witnesses, and too, Bakhtriger was beaten by fellow accepted the IJ’s summary of the evidence. students. Later, mirroring the experience However, the BIA overturned the IJ’s of his father, Bakhtriger lost two grant of asylum and ordered that successive jobs in factories as a result of Bakhtriger be removed to Moldova. The his religion. BIA decided that even if the IJ accurately described the level of persecution, Both Bakhtriger and his mother Bakhtriger’s experience did not rise to the recounted that anti-semitic signs and level found in previous cases where the graffiti regularly marred fences and Board determined to exercise its authority buildings. In the spring of 1992, the door to grant asylum for compelling reasons. of the apartment in which the Bakhtrigers lived was etched with a Star of David, Bakhtriger filed a petition for a writ something the Bakhtrigers took as a of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of threat—that anti-semitic elements were Pennsylvania. Before the District Court, 3 Bakhtriger did not claim a denial of a This timely appeal followed. constitutional right or an error in A district court’s determination that application of the statutory standards. it lacks subject matter jurisdiction is a Rather, he argued that the factual record determination of law over which we did not support the finding by both the IJ exercise plenary review. See Gould Elecs. and the BIA that there was no well- Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 founded fear of future persecution because (3d Cir. 2000). Moreover, we exercise conditions in Moldova have changed. As plenary review where a district court he put it, “the IJ and BIA ignored evidence dismisses a habeas corpus petition based in the record of centuries of anti-semitism on a legal conclusion without holding an and persecution of Jews.” J.A. 7. evidentiary hearing. See Zettlemoyer v. Bakhtriger also urged that even if Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 291 (3d Cir. there was no well-founded fear of 1991). persecution, the BIA wrongly reversed