Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10239
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A024-715-426
EVEL CAMELIEN,
a.k.a. Joseph Dorvil,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 7, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 2 of 10
Evel Camelien, 1 a native and citizen of Haiti, has been denied asylum,
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). He petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) order. On appeal, Camelien makes three arguments. First, he claims
the BIA erred by retroactively applying an opinion of the Attorney General to
determine whether his prior drug conviction was a “particularly serious crime.”
Second, Camelien argues the BIA and the IJ erred by concluding that he failed to
show his drug conviction was not a particularly serious crime. Finally, he contends
the BIA erred by denying his claim for CAT relief. After careful consideration, we
dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
I.
We review de novo the BIA’s and the IJ’s legal conclusions and review their
factfindings for substantial evidence.2 Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d
1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). The highly deferential substantial-evidence standard
requires us to view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light
1
Camelien’s given name is Joseph Dorvil, but he used the name Evel Camelien when initially
entering the United States. For consistency with the deportation proceedings, we refer to him as
Evel Camelien.
2
When the BIA issues its own opinion, we review only that opinion; to the extent the BIA adopts
the IJ’s opinion or agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will review both opinions. Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
2
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 3 of 10
most favorable to the agency’s decision; we will reverse the agency’s findings only
if the evidence compels a different conclusion. Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621
F.3d 1318, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2010).
We consider de novo whether we have jurisdiction to hear a petition for
review. Resendiz-Alcaraz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 383 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir.
2004). Under the INA, we lack jurisdiction to review agency decisions that are
made discretionary by statute, as well as final removal orders of aliens who have
committed an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii),
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(C). However, we retain jurisdiction to review
constitutional claims or questions of law in these cases, as well as to determine
whether a petitioner is an alien removable for having committed an enumerated
offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Camacho-Salinas v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 460
F.3d 1343, 1346–47 (11th Cir. 2006).
II.
Camelien first argues that the BIA erred by applying In re Y-L-, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 270 (Att’y Gen. 2002), retroactively to decide whether his 1986 conviction
for sale of cocaine constituted a “particularly serious crime.” See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B). We have jurisdiction to review this argument because it raises a
pure question of law. See Ferguson v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 563 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th
3
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 4 of 10
Cir. 2009) (finding jurisdiction to consider the legal argument that the repeal of
INA § 212(c) had an impermissible retroactive effect).
The INA prohibits an alien’s removal to a country if he shows his life or
freedom would be threatened in that country based on certain statutory grounds. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). This restriction does not apply, however, if the Attorney
General decides that the alien has committed a “particularly serious crime.” Id.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). An alien automatically qualifies for removal if he has been
convicted of an aggravated felony or felonies and sentenced to at least five-years
imprisonment, though the Attorney General can decide that a crime qualifies
regardless of the sentence imposed. Id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv).
In In re Y-L-, the Attorney General considered which aggravated felonies
with a sentence of less than five years might qualify as particularly serious crimes,
noting that the BIA had been making this determination on a case-by-case basis for
some time. 23 I. & N. Dec. at 273. The Attorney General interpreted aggravated
felonies involving drug trafficking as being presumptively serious crimes. Id. at
274. Supporting this interpretation was the fact that “[b]oth the courts and the BIA
have long recognized that drug trafficking felonies equate to ‘particularly serious
crimes’ . . . . [F]rom the time the BIA first confronted the contours of ‘particularly
serious crimes’ in 1982, the Board has continually found convictions for drug
possession and trafficking to be particularly serious.” Id. at 274–75 (quotation
4
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 5 of 10
omitted) (emphasis omitted). Only under “extraordinary and compelling
circumstances” can this presumption be rebutted—by showing the presence of six
factors: (1) a very small quantity of drugs; (2) a very modest amount of money
exchanged; (3) mere peripheral involvement in the crime; (4) no violence or threat
of violence; (5) no involvement with organized crime or terrorists; and (6) no
adverse effect on juveniles. Id. at 276–77.
Camelien argues that In re Y-L- should not have been applied retroactively
to his 1986 drug conviction because it announced a “radical[]” new rule. Before
Camelien’s conviction, however, the INA authorized the Attorney General to
interpret what constituted a “particularly serious crime.” See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv). By clarifying that term in In re Y-L-, the Attorney
General did not promulgate a new rule, as Camelien supposes, but rather exercised
its right to interpret what the statutory text had always meant. See Yu v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 568 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (rejecting a similar
retroactivity argument because the Attorney General, by interpreting the INA, had
determined “what the law had always meant” and had “clarified the correct
interpretation of the law; it did not change the law” (quotation omitted)). What’s
more, the Attorney General’s interpretation comported with longstanding BIA
practice. See In re Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 274–75; see also Bowen v. Georgetown
Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 211–14, 109 S. Ct. 468, 473–75 (1988) (reasoning that
5
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 6 of 10
a particular statutory interpretation was justified because it was consistent with
“past administrative practice”). Thus, the BIA did not err by applying In re Y-L-
retroactively.
III.
Next, Camelien argues that the BIA and the IJ erred by concluding he did
not show that his drug conviction was not a particularly serious crime. This
argument is framed as a legal one. But it boils down to a claim that the BIA and
the IJ improperly weighed the evidence—a “garden-variety abuse of discretion
argument” that does not raise any legal or constitutional questions. Fynn v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Camelien contends
that the BIA and the IJ should have given more weight to evidence of his minimal
role in the crime and less weight to his nolo contendre plea, which did not
expressly admit guilt. But such a balancing of evidence was soundly within the
agency’s discretion. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider these discretionary
determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)–(D); see also Fynn, 752 F.3d at
1253.
IV.
Finally, Camelien argues that the BIA erred in several ways by denying his
CAT claim. First, he asserts that the BIA erred by not viewing the facts of his case
in light of Jean-Pierre v. U.S. Attorney General, 500 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2007), a
6
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 7 of 10
case about a Haitian deportee with AIDS. Second, Camelien contends that the BIA
failed to give reasoned consideration to all his evidence. Third, he argues that the
BIA erred by not addressing his argument that intentional denial of medical care is
torture.
Removal may be withheld under the CAT if a petitioner establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that he would be tortured if removed to the
proposed location. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). 3 In making this assessment, the
agency shall consider “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.” 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). However, each claim or piece of evidence presented by the
petitioner need not be specifically addressed—a decision-maker may omit
discussion of some evidence and still give reasoned consideration. Indrawati v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1302 (11th Cir. 2015). We will remand only when
the decision was so lacking in reasoned consideration that review becomes
impossible. Id.
The BIA did not err by not applying Jean-Pierre to the facts of Camelien’s
case. While we have jurisdiction to review the legal question of whether a
particular undisputed fact pattern amounts to “torture” under the CAT, we lack
3
If an alien is eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT but is also subject to
mandatory denial of such withholding, the alien’s removal shall be deferred under 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.17(a). 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(4).
7
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 8 of 10
jurisdiction to review the factfinding that a petitioner failed to prove he would
suffer such torture upon deportation. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d
1224, 1231 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1000 (2014). In
Jean-Pierre, the BIA and the IJ held, as a matter of law, that the undisputed facts
“did not rise to the level of torture as contemplated by the [CAT].” 500 F.3d at
1319. Thus, this Court did not decide whether the petitioner had actually carried
his evidentiary burden under the CAT. See id. at 1326 (“The BIA is obliged to
resolve the basic questions raised in this CAT petition in the first instance.”).
Instead, we took issue with the BIA’s legal construction of “torture” and found that
the BIA had failed to give reasoned consideration to the petitioner’s “most
important facts” and “essential legal arguments.” Id. at 1325. Here, in contrast,
the BIA and the IJ found that Camelien’s hypothetical chain of “speculative”
events was not adequate to show he would more likely than not suffer torture in
Haiti. We lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Camelien did not carry his
burden under the CAT. See Perez-Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1231; see also Zhou Hua
Zhu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that an IJ’s
determination of the likelihood of a future event is a factfinding).
Camelien is also wrong to say that the BIA failed to give reasoned
consideration to his evidence. We have jurisdiction to review the legal question of
whether an agency’s decision is so lacking in reasoned consideration that review
8
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 9 of 10
becomes impossible. See Perez-Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1231. Yet Camelien has not
identified omissions that would render meaningful review impossible. The BIA
explicitly referenced “the deplorable prison conditions in Haiti,” “incidents of
misconduct by prison officials,” “[Camelien’s] back pain,” “[Camelien’s inability]
to receive proper medical care,” “a medical condition which could result in him
bleeding during urination or otherwise,” and “the constellation of medical events
and other concerns.”4 Camelien picks one line out of the BIA’s opinion—which
references his testimony—to suggest that the BIA did not consider any of his
expert testimony, but this claim is belied by the excerpts above, which concern
matters testified on by experts. 5 The BIA was not obligated to include every bit of
language that Camelien thought was favorable to him. See Indrawati, 779 F.3d at
1302. The BIA did not fail to give reasoned consideration to Camelien’s evidence.
Finally, remand is not warranted by the BIA’s decision not to separately
address Camelien’s argument that the intentional denial of medical care constitutes
torture. The BIA had already addressed and rejected as too speculative Camelien’s
argument that he would be tortured due to his alleged back pain (which could be
exacerbated by a lack of medical care). The BIA also noted that Camelien had
family members in Haiti who could potentially secure his release from detention or
4
The BIA did discount some of this evidence. But as we have explained, we lack jurisdiction to
review the BIA’s factfindings and weighing of evidence.
5
Indeed, the BIA opinion explicitly references Michelle Karshan, one of Camelien’s experts.
9
Case: 15-10239 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 10 of 10
give him medicine. In light of these explicit findings, there was no need for the
BIA to address Camelien’s related argument.6 Because the BIA had already
addressed Camelien’s argument that he would be tortured due to his alleged back
pain, it did not need to separately address this related argument.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
6
Camelien attempts to distinguish his argument about the intentional deprivation of medical care
from his argument about the possible negative effects of his alleged back pain. But the BIA’s
findings regarding the speculative nature and the remedies of the latter argument also apply to
the former. That is, Camelien’s claim that he would suffer an intentional deprivation of medical
care also relies on speculation, and the hypothetical situation could also be avoided through his
family’s intervention.
10