Opinion ID: 2610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The 2005 Proceedings before IJ Vomacka

Text: At a hearing in June 2005, IJ Vomacka took yet another tack. He first expressed disappointment with Ali for raising on appeal his failure to consider the proceeding before IJ Iskra (I thought that it was made clear to the parties that I was not going to pay any attention to the prior tapes. And so I'm not ... particularly happy to know that on appeal the issue was raised that I should have relied on those tapes.) [16] Nonetheless, IJ Vomacka complied with the order and reviewed the record of the prior proceedings. Now that the case was on remand, he also allowed Ali to pursue his claim that he would be tortured in Guyana on the basis of his sexual orientation, and he accepted additional evidence. At hearings in August and September 2005, IJ Vomacka heard testimony from Ali's mother, who stated that he returned from Guyana in 1997 wearing dirty, blood-stained clothes, from a psychologist, who described Ali's mental health problems (post traumatic stress disorder and severe depression), and from Ali, who explained why he believed he would be tortured because of his homosexuality. Ali stated that before he was raped, the police officers curse[d] [him] and called [him] anti-man, [which] means faggot. He further testified that the punishment in Guyana for sodomy is life in prison, and that he would be tortured if imprisoned for that crime. Ali explained that he did not raise his sexual orientation earlier in the proceedings because he did not consider himself gay at that time. IJ Vomacka also accepted affidavits from two representatives of the Guyana Human Rights Association, which described the violence and hostility directed towards homosexuals and criminal deportees in Guyana. [17] In the end, IJ Vomacka reaffirmed his prior decision. See In re Peter Conrad Ali, No. A 30 105 177 (Immig.Ct.N.Y.City, Oct. 17, 2005). He did so on the basis of several findings. First, he found that Ali's claims  that he would more likely than not be tortured because of criminal deportee status and because of his sexual orientation  were incompatible. He opined that violent dangerous criminals and feminine contemptible homosexuals are not usually considered to be the same people, and therefore Ali was less likely to be viewed in Guyana as a member of either disfavored group. Second, he concluded that the evidence supported neither of Ali's claims. With respect to the likelihood of torture as a criminal deportee, the IJ found a lack of specific objective evidence that such conduct occurred. As to the likelihood of torture as a homosexual, IJ Vomacka wondered how anyone in Guyana would even know that Ali was a homosexual. Ali would need a partner or cooperating person in order to be recognized as a homosexual, IJ Vomacka theorized, but there's reason to be concerned about whether [Ali] is likely to form such a close relationship within a foreseeable period of time. IJ Vomacka noted that Ali is a convicted criminal with professed mental problems and some problems with his personality; [f]urthermore, ... [he] is not particularly communicative or articulate. He's not particularly skilled and mature in the way he expresses himself, shows his feelings, etc. Therefore, the picture of [Ali]as a proud, professed homosexual in Guyana seems to be more an expression of wishful thinking than something that's particularly likely to come true. In any case, IJ Vomacka continued, the evidence failed to establish that homosexuals in Guyana are persecuted, much less tortured. Third, IJ Vomacka found that Ali was not credible. IJ Vomacka noted material and substantial inconsistencies in the way [Ali] has described the series of events in 1997 since he was placed in these proceedings. For example, Ali gave varying accounts of the length of his detention and the time of day of the rape. Meanwhile, his account of a prison altercation in 2004, purportedly prompted by comments about Ali's homosexuality, did not correspond with jail reports. IJ Vomacka also took issue with Ali's accounts of his two trips back to the U.S. [18] Finally, IJ Vomacka pointed out that in 2002, Ali denied writing letters to the Guyanese embassy, but in 2004 he admitted writing those same letters. IJ Vomacka concluded that Ali was fluent in the language of lying and not a credible person in general, that he had no particular interest or devotion to telling the truth while he's under oath, and that he was entirely capable of having invented the entire story.