RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
File Name: 11a0053p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
X
-
FRANK BENONI VINCENT,
-
Petitioner,
-
-
No. 09-3975
v.
,
>
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney -
-
Respondent. -
General,
-
N
On Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A79 689 042.
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2011
Before: MERRITT, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Mark M. Nesbit, NESBIT LAW FIRM, Columbus, Ohio, for Petitioner.
Craig A. Newell, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Frank Vincent, seeks review of the final
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture. We conclude that the asylum petition is untimely
and that petitioner has not shown any “extraordinary” or “changed” circumstances to
excuse the untimeliness. Likewise, petitioner has not shown a “likelihood of torture”
1
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 2
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, as implemented by regulation
issued by the United States Attorney General. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.1(a)(1). However,
because we disagree with the finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution, we
remand to the Board for further consideration as to whether petitioner has a well-founded
fear of future persecution if returned to his native country of Sierra Leone.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Sierra Leone. He entered the country legally
on July 2, 2000, on a nonimmigrant visitor visa that initially allowed him to stay until
September 6, 2000, but was extended until March 31, 2001. Vincent overstayed his
authorized time and married a United States citizen on August 6, 2001. He did not file
an asylum application within one year of arriving in the United States, choosing instead
to rely on his wife’s citizenship to adjust his status. On June 11, 2002, his citizen wife
filed an immigrant visa petition (Form I-130) on his behalf and, on the same day,
petitioner filed an application for adjustment of status based on the pending visa
application. A little over a month later, in July 2002, his wife died, causing his visa
petition and adjustment-of-status application to be denied on May 6, 2003. On July 14,
2003, about a year after his wife died, Vincent filed an asylum application. He was
placed in removal proceedings as an alien who remained in the United States longer than
authorized, and a hearing was held in the immigration court on October 5, 2005. After
the hearing, in which Vincent was represented by counsel and conceded removability,
he filed an updated application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. A merits hearing was held on October 25, 2007; and,
at the conclusion of the hearing, the immigration judge orally denied Vincent’s claims
for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Vincent timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed
his appeal on July 14, 2009. Vincent timely filed a petition for review in this Court.
I. Asylum Application Untimely
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that an asylum applicant
“demonstrate[ ] by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed
within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C.
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 3
§ 1158(a)(2)(B). This requirement is subject to exceptions in cases where the “alien
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed
circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or
extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within” the
required one-year period. Id. at § 1158(a)(2)(D). A different subsection of Section 1158
creates a jurisdictional bar to review of the timeliness issue: “[n]o court shall have
jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General” regarding whether
changed or extraordinary circumstances exist to excuse the filing of an asylum
application beyond one year after arrival in the United States. Id. § 1158(a)(3).
However, the jurisdictional bar applies “only when the appeal seeks review of
discretionary or factual questions, but not when the appeal seeks review of constitutional
claims or matters of statutory construction.” See, e.g., Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523
F.3d 640, 650-51 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 748
(6th Cir. 2006)).
The immigration judge determined that the death of Vincent’s wife in 2002 did
not constitute “changed circumstances” as her death did not have anything to do with his
eligibility for asylum. The immigration judge found that Vincent, who arrived in the
United States in July 2000, was already out of status and beyond the one-year filing
deadline even before his marriage in August 2001. The immigration judge further
explained that Vincent’s choice to change his status through his marriage to a United
States citizen instead of applying for asylum did not constitute an “extraordinary
circumstance” justifying or explaining the delay in filing an asylum application. Finally,
the immigration judge found that Vincent’s health issues did not constitute
“extraordinary circumstances” because they did not prevent him from carrying on with
his life, including working. Also, the health issues were not documented and he did not
file his asylum application until June 2003, long after these health issues were resolved.
Vincent raises various due process claims concerning the untimeliness
determination in an attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional bar to review by this Court.
Vincent contends that the immigration judge was not a neutral arbiter, and also claims
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 4
that his due process rights were violated by the judge’s bias, based on the immigration
judge’s determination that the death of Vincent’s wife did not constitute an extraordinary
circumstance. Specifically, Vincent challenges whether there was factual support for the
immigration judge’s alleged implication that Vincent’s marriage was not bona fide and
the factual determination of whether the delay in filing the asylum application was
related to his wife’s death. Vincent’s arguments raise factual issues, not constitutional
claims. In any event, the immigration judge did not make any findings about the
legitimacy of Vincent’s marriage. That fact was irrelevant to the issue of whether the
asylum application was timely. Instead, the immigration judge found that Vincent’s
choice of marrying a citizen and pursuing legal status through the marriage instead of
through an asylum application did not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance”
excusing the untimeliness. Similarly, challenging the immigration judge’s finding that
Vincent’s wife’s death was unrelated to his untimely filing ignores the fact that the
immigration judge found that Vincent’s asylum application was already untimely when
he married a citizen in August 2001. It was then another 10 months — June 2002 —
before he and his wife began proceedings to adjust his status due to his marriage to a
citizen. We see no prejudgment or bias on the part of the immigration judge in making
these factual findings or commenting on Vincent’s marriage.
Vincent also challenges the determination that there were no extraordinary
circumstances justifying his late filing of the asylum application by arguing that applying
for an adjustment of his visa status based on his marriage to a citizen was a faster and
more-definite path to legal status than an asylum application and it was therefore
reasonable for him to pursue that path only and not also file an asylum application. His
argument is essentially that he should not be penalized for the fact that his wife died
during the visa application and adjustment-of-status proceedings, an event that rendered
him ineligible for permanent resident status. While the denial of his visa petition and his
adjustment-of-status application are not before us and they were not before the
immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals in this proceeding, Vincent may
find relief from a recent change in the law. On October 28, 2009, a new law was signed
by President Obama that allows a widow(er) of a United States citizen to qualify as an
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 5
immediate relative regardless of how long the couple was married. Pub. L. 111-83,
§ 568(c)-(e), 123 Stat. 2142, 2186-88 (2009). The law amends Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and removes the
requirement that a couple must have been married for at least two years before the
citizen-spouse’s death in order for the surviving spouse to qualify for permanent resident
status as an immediate relative of the late citizen-spouse. Furthermore, Section
568(c)(2)(B) of the new law allows an alien widow(er) of a citizen who died before
October 28, 2009, but who did not have a visa petition pending on that date — which
would apply to Vincent as his visa petition and adjustment-of-status application were
denied in 2003 — to file a Form I-360 with the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services that would allow for permanent resident status of the widow(er),
provided it is filed by October 28, 2011, and the alien has not remarried. Pub. L. 111-83,
§ 568(c)(2)(B), 123 Stat. 2142, 2186-87 (2009). All other requirements for the approval
of a visa petition remain unaltered, and we make no findings on Vincent’s eligibility to
file or the potential for approval of a petition should he choose to file one by October of
2011.
The other challenges raised by Vincent as due process challenges lack relevance
to the untimeliness finding as they go to the immigration judge’s findings that Vincent
suffered no past persecution and would suffer no future persecution if returned to Sierra
Leone. We, therefore, lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the asylum application
on the ground of untimeliness.
II. Withholding of Removal
Vincent also seeks review of the Board’s decision to deny him withholding of
removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against
Torture. In support of his claim of past persecution in Sierra Leone, petitioner points to
(1) the murder of his son by rebels, which he claims was in retaliation for Vincent’s
political opposition to the rebels’ use of child soldiers and (2) the burning down of his
home by the rebels.
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 6
To qualify for withholding of removal, the applicant bears the burden of
demonstrating that it is more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened
if he returned to Sierra Leone on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). However, if the applicant “is
determined to have suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal on
account of [one of the five specified grounds], it shall be presumed that the applicant’s
life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the country of removal on the basis
of the original claim.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). If the applicant establishes that he
has suffered past persecution, the government may rebut the presumption of a well-
founded fear of future persecution by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either
that “[t]here has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant’s
life or freedom would not be threatened on account of any of the five grounds” or that
“[t]he applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to
another part of the proposed country of removal.” Id. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A)-(B).
On appeal, “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). This standard “basically codifies the Supreme Court’s substantial
evidence standard.” Yu v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 700, 702 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Dia v.
Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 247-49 (3d Cir. 2003)). Thus, the immigration judge’s
“determination should be upheld unless evidence ‘not only supports a contrary
conclusion, but indeed compels it.’” Id. at 702-03 (quoting Ouda v. INS, 324 F.3d 445,
451 (6th Cir. 2003)).
As to the killing of his son by rebels, Vincent’s own testimony demonstrates that
his son, who was an auto mechanic, was shot because he refused to give the rebels his
customers’ cars. At his hearing, Vincent testified that “[T]he rebels told [his son] that
they wanted to take some of the cars . . . . [a]nd he objected, said these are [other]
people’s cars. After argument, they shot him in his living room, and they went.”
Admin. Rec. at 138. Vincent testified that his son’s wife also told Vincent that the son
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 7
was shot because he refused to give the rebels his customers’ cars. Id. at 166. Vincent
presents no evidence that the rebels’ motive stemmed from political opinion, imputed
or otherwise, or that it was anything other than robbery.
However, the determination by the immigration judge and the Board that the
record evidence does not demonstrate that the burning down of Vincent’s house in 1999
constitutes past persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. Economic
deprivation may constitute persecution. Berdo v. INS, 432 F.2d 824, 846 (6th Cir. 1970).
Both the immigration judge and the Board recognized that the house burning may
constitute economic deprivation, see In re T-Z, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163 (BIA 2007), but,
upon examining the factual circumstances surrounding the burning, determined it was
not severe enough to amount to persecution. Board Dec. at 2 (July 14, 2009), App’x to
Petitioner’s Brief at 3. Vincent testified that the rebels told him they would not harm
him because he worked with the Red Cross, which had provided medical aid to rebels
in the past. Vincent also testified that the rebels knew he was a member of the Council
of Churches, a group that actively voiced opposition to the use of child soldiers by the
rebels. Other evidence in the record supports the fact that the rebels knew who he was
and were specifically targeting him when they burned his house. They had been looking
for him when they killed his son, and soldiers in an international peacekeeping force in
Sierra Leone had informed Vincent that rebels were looking for members of the Council
of Churches who had participated in the meeting in Guinea with the exiled president of
Sierra Leone. Vincent’s participation in this meeting had been well publicized in print
and television media. The record demonstrates that the Board lacked substantial
evidence to conclude that the rebels did not specifically target him on account of his
political opinion. This evidence and the circumstances surrounding the burning of the
house compel the conclusion that the burning of Vincent’s house was sufficiently severe
and targeted to constitute persecution. See T-Z, 24 I & N Dec. at 174 (“[A] large-scale
confiscation of property . . . may amount to persecution even though the applicant could
otherwise survive.”). To the contrary, the record compels the conclusion that the
burning of Vincent’s house was on account of his political opinion.
No. 09-3975 Vincent v. Holder Page 8
In addition, the totality of the circumstances — which includes the killing of
Vincent’s son and the house burning — satisfy a finding of past persecution. Standing
alone, the evidence surrounding Vincent’s son’s death does not compel the conclusion
that the killing itself was based on Vincent’s political opinion, but it is not challenged
that the rebels went to his son’s home looking for Vincent. The cumulative effect of the
two incidents rises to the level of persecution because those incidents, in combination,
“constitute a level of punishment, suffering and infliction of harm sufficient to establish
past persecution.” Vata v. Gonzales, 243 F. App’x 930, 942 (6th Cir. 2007).
Having demonstrated past persecution, Vincent was entitled to a presumption of
a well-founded fear of future persecution that the government could rebut by a
preponderance of the evidence regarding his application for withholding of removal.
Because it did not find past persecution, the Board did not conduct this analysis. On
remand, the Board should consider whether the government can carry its burden of
rebutting the presumption of future persecution by showing changed circumstances in
Sierra Leone or that Vincent may relocate to another part of the country or otherwise
avoid persecution if returned to his native land. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A)-(B).
III. Convention Against Torture
As support for his claim that he more likely than not would suffer torture if
returned to Sierra Leone, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16-18, petitioner testified that former
rebels are working in the current government. He cites no authority for this
uncorroborated testimony and the Country Report does not support this contention.
Vincent has failed to meet his burden of showing that he more likely than not would
suffer torture at the hands of the government if returned to Sierra Leone.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review of the Board’s denial
of Vincent’s application for asylum and the Convention Against Torture, but we grant
the petition as to the withholding of removal claim and remand to the Board for further
proceedings.