Shah v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1905
ALI SHAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
Stephanie F. Dyson and Cayer Dyson Law, P.C. on brief for
petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, and Song E. Park, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.
July 2, 2014
LYNCH, Chief Judge. This case is a good example for why
arguments should be made to the Immigration Judge ("IJ") and the
Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") in the first instance, and why
the arguments actually made should be clear. Ali Shah, a citizen
and native of Pakistan, petitions for review of a June 20, 2013
order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
He argues that the BIA did not properly address either of his
arguments going to earlier adverse credibility findings. He makes
to us a series of arguments in support of reopening that were never
presented to the BIA. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Shah's motion to reopen and we do not have jurisdiction to
consider freshly minted arguments not presented to the agency, so
we both dismiss portions of his petition for lack of jurisdiction
and we deny his petition for review as to other claims.
I.
Shah entered the country in 2002. We give only a brief
summary of Shah's removal proceedings, which have lasted for well
over ten years. He has had the benefit of two de novo hearings
before two different IJs, and his appeals have been considered by
the BIA on multiple occasions and petitions for review to the Third
Circuit. Shah's motion for a change of venue was granted and this
matter was transferred from Philadelphia to Boston in 2009. We
focus on proceedings that followed the change of venue.
-2-
A. Background
Shah entered the United States without inspection at or
near Lake Charles, Louisiana around July 15, 2002. After receiving
a Notice to Appear around July 19 charging him with removability
for being present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Shah conceded removability
and filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. Specifically, he alleged that he
was persecuted in Pakistan because of his membership in the Nawaz
Group of the Pakistani Muslim League ("PML"). Shah joined the PML
in 1996, when he was about sixteen years old, and held the position
of propaganda officer for his village. He alleged that he was
arrested in October 1996 as a result of his actions on behalf of
the PML, and that he was detained, beaten daily, and told that if
he did not cease his activities on behalf of the PML he would be
killed.
We skip to the 2011, post-transfer hearing. The hearing
was unsuccessful for him, and the result was affirmed by the BIA.
That led to the denial of the motion to reopen, which is our
subject matter.
B. 2011 IJ Hearing and BIA Affirmance
Shah testified and presented evidence of his past
persecution claims to an IJ in Boston in July 2011. The IJ also
considered Shah's testimony and submitted evidence from earlier
-3-
hearings. The focus of the hearing was on Shah's alleged past
arrest and persecution at the hands of Pakistani police, which was
said to have resulted from his membership in the PML political
party. Shah's 2011 testimony sought to explain inconsistencies in
his story.1 See Shah v. Att'y Gen., 273 F. App'x 176, 176-78 (3d
Cir. 2008) (recounting Shah's first hearing before an IJ in
Philadelphia and resulting lack-of-credibility finding). In
particular, Shah testified to the circumstances of his arrest and
later release in Pakistan, the duration of his detention, and his
resulting medical treatment.
At the conclusion of the 2011 hearing, the IJ denied
Shah's petition for asylum and withholding of removal, finding him
not credible and not to have made out his claim of past persecution
1
Inconsistencies in Shah's testimony had led to an adverse
credibility finding in an earlier set of hearings. Shah's first
merits hearing before an IJ was in August 2004, and the IJ found
him not to be credible. When the BIA reviewed that decision in
2006, it adopted the IJ's conclusion but did not specifically
discuss whether the record supported the IJ's adverse credibility
finding. Shah v. Att'y Gen., 273 F. App'x 176, 178 (3d Cir. 2008).
Shah then petitioned for review in the Third Circuit, and the
government filed a motion to remand to the BIA for further
consideration of the credibility issue, which was granted. Id. On
remand, the BIA concluded that the record did not support the IJ's
adverse credibility finding; however, the Board nonetheless denied
Shah's petition on the grounds that he failed to meet his burden of
proof because he failed to provide reasonably available
corroborating evidence. Id. Shah again petitioned for review in
the Third Circuit. That court, on grounds that are not relevant
here, remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ so
that Shah could have an opportunity to present corroborating
evidence. Id. at 180. We focus here on the IJ's 2011 de novo
review of evidence that Shah presented on remand from the Third
Circuit.
-4-
or of likely future persecution. The IJ highlighted a series of
significant inconsistencies between his 2011 testimony and his
testimony in earlier asylum proceedings. The IJ noted that Shah's
previous testimony that he was taken into custody alone clashed
with his current testimony that he was arrested alongside his
junior secretary, and that Shah was "unable to provide a
satisfactory explanation for this material discrepancy." Likewise,
the IJ noted Shah's varying descriptions of how long he was
detained by the Pakistani police: in 2011, he said he was detained
for about one month, while he had previously testified that he was
held for five or six days. The IJ also found Shah's proffered
documentary evidence to be problematic, specifically that the PML
membership card he submitted to demonstrate his party affiliation
was blank. The IJ denied the application for lack of credibility,
and did not render a decision as to whether the documents could
sustain his asylum claim in any event.
Shah appealed the IJ's decision, and the BIA found that
the IJ's adverse credibility finding was "based on specific
examples in the record of inconsistent statements" and was not
clearly erroneous. After affirming the IJ's credibility
determination, the BIA found it unnecessary to determine whether
Shah would have established his eligibility for asylum if he had
been found credible. Shah did not petition for review of that
ruling.
-5-
C. BIA Decision on Motion to Reopen
Shah filed a timely motion to reopen. The entirety of
petitioner's argument in that motion was as follows:
[T]he IJ made his adverse credibility
determination by looking exclusively at
[Shah]'s testimony from 2004 and 2011. The IJ
found supposed inconsistencies between the two
sets of testimony and denied [Shah]'s
application. No other reasons for the IJ's
adverse credibility determination were
included in the BIA's decision. Now, [Shah]
is providing new evidence in the form of three
affidavits from close family and friends that
corroborate his claims of torture and
persecution in Pakistan, and help him make a
prima facie showing of having a well-founded
fear for his claim of asylum.
Shah's motion was, as the Board noted, "accompanied by affidavits
and death certificates of individuals" from his home town, along
with "evidence that the Taliban has recently threatened his family
members because they are considered 'pagan' and 'spies.'" On June
20, 2013, the BIA denied petitioner's motion to reopen. The BIA
concluded that the harm petitioner "claims to fear appears to be
specific to the Swat Valley, and [Shah] has neither argued nor
offered evidence that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate
to safety elsewhere in Pakistan," citing In re D-I-M—, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 448, 450-51 (BIA 2008). This petition for review followed.
II.
"Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored as
contrary to 'the compelling public interests in finality and the
expeditious processing of proceedings.'" Raza v. Gonzales, 484
-6-
F.3d 125, 127 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Roberts v. Gonzales, 422
F.3d 33, 35 (1st Cir. 2005)). As a result, the BIA enjoys
"considerable latitude" in this area. Id. We review the BIA's
denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Pérez v.
Holder, 740 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2014), and uphold the agency's
decision "unless the complaining party can show that the BIA
committed an error of law or exercised its judgment in an
arbitrary, capricious, or irrational way," Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d
53, 56 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87, 91 (1st
Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"There are two threshold requirements for a motion to
reopen: that it establish a 'prima facie case for the underlying
substantive relief sought' and that it introduce 'previously
unavailable, material evidence." Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13,
20 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988)).
If a petitioner fails to meet either requirement, the BIA may deny
a motion to reopen. Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427, 433 (1st Cir.
2010). Petitioner's motion to reopen fails on the first prong.
In all of the removal proceedings that came before
petitioner's motion to reopen, his asylum claim was based on his
allegations of past persecution by the Pakistani police on account
of his membership in and actions on behalf of the PML. In his
motion to reopen, petitioner changed course. His newly submitted
evidence aimed to make a prima facie showing that he had a fear of
-7-
future persecution by the Taliban, and did not go to whether his
prior testimony was credible. That was the effect of submitted
affidavits and death certificates of individuals in his hometown in
Pakistan's Swat Valley. The BIA rejected the argument.
Petitioner, in a non sequitur, faults the BIA for not
using this evidence to "address the credibility issues . . . raised
in his motion to reopen." However, his motion to reopen offered no
explanation of how or if the new evidence rebutted the IJ's adverse
credibility finding. The BIA plainly did not abuse its discretion
in evaluating the new evidence on its own terms, that is, in
relation to petitioner's newly stated fear of future persecution by
the Taliban. Cf. Lemus v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 399, 401 (1st Cir.
2007) (affirming BIA's denial of motion to reopen where "the newly
proffered information does nothing to rehabilitate the petitioner's
failed credibility" and where the administrative disposition of the
case "hinged mainly on an adverse credibility determination").
Based on the motion itself and accompanying evidence, the
BIA evaluated petitioner's motion to reopen as a claim of feared
future persecution based on the Taliban's activities in the Swat
Valley, and found the new evidence insufficient to warrant
reopening. If petitioner intended some other use for the evidence,
he should have said so.
That leads to his second argument. Where, as here, an
applicant for asylum has not established past persecution, "the
-8-
applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not
be reasonable for him or her to relocate [within the applicant's
home country], unless the persecution is by a government or is
government-sponsored." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Petitioner's
motion to reopen made absolutely no attempt to meet this burden,
and the BIA, quite properly, so found.
Although petitioner, in his motion, never asserted that
his fear of persecution was not confined to the Swat Valley region
or addressed relocation at all, he argues that the BIA "improperly"
assumed that his fear of persecution is confined to the Swat Valley
region. Not so. None of the evidence that accompanied the motion
to reopen even addressed the internal relocation issue. See
Abdullah v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 92, 101 (1st Cir. 2006) (affirming
denial of motion to reopen where petitioner's motion was not
accompanied by any new evidence on the lack of feasibility of
relocating elsewhere in Pakistan).
In fact, the only evidence petitioner offers in support
of this argument was not presented to the BIA: the 2012 U.S.
Department of State Country Report on Pakistan. Put simply, the
BIA could not have, as petitioner argues, abused its discretion in
overlooking details of the Country Report where the report was not
even in the administrative record. Further, we reject petitioner's
request for us to take judicial notice of the information contained
in the Country Report, as it was "neither introduced into the
-9-
record nor included in support" of the motion to reopen. Hussain
v. Holder, 576 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (requiring court of appeals to decide petition
"only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is
based").
We likewise do not consider petitioner's argument, also
presented for the first time to this court, that the BIA should
have considered sua sponte whether the allegations of persecution
by the Taliban were in fact government-sponsored. We have
consistently held that "arguments not raised before the BIA are
waived due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies."
Molina De Massenet v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 661, 664 (1st Cir. 2007).
Petitioner cannot rescue his motion to reopen by introducing new
evidence and new arguments for the first time before this court.
The petition for review is denied as to those arguments
presented to the agency. It is otherwise dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
-10-