Vertus v. Atty Gen USA

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-8-2004
Vertus v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2671
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Vertus v. Atty Gen USA" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 850.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/850
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 03-2671
RENALD VERTUS;
WADNER VERTUS,
Petitioners
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
TOM RIDGE, SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
WILLIAM RILEY, ACTING DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION &
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents
On petition for review of a final order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
File Nos: A79-128-441
A79-128-442
__________________________________
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on March 26, 2004
Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and
GIBSON, Circuit Judges,*
(Filed: April 8, 2004)
*
The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
____________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
The petitioners, Renald and Wadner Vertus, are half-brothers seeking asylum,
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Torture Convention”). For the reasons set out
below, we affirm the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
I.
Wadner Vertus, age 14, and his half-brother Renald Vertus, age 17, entered the
United States on January 25, 2002 with fraudulent passports. The brothers were referred
to asylum-only proceedings on January 26, 2002. Their claims were consolidated before
the IJ and the BIA, and are virtually identical. The IJ heard testimony on December 23,
2002.
Wadner Vertus lived with his uncle, Cala Vertus, in Saint Marc, Haiti. In
November 2001, Wadner was at home alone watching television. A group of people
came to his house, began shouting, and shooting guns in the air, and threw rocks onto the
metal roof, some of which actually pierced the roof. He explained that the crowd was
noisy, and although he could not understand what they were saying he believed them to
be, unlike his uncle, Aristide supporters. Wadner ran the short distance to the home
2
where his half-brother Renald lived with his mother and step-father. When Wadner first
related what took place at his home, Renald’s mother did not believe him.
Within a short time of Wadner’s arrival, however, a group of people gathered
around the home.1 The group fired shots into the air and threw rocks at Renald’s home.
The group then broke down the door, and demanded that the occupants of the house either
produce Renald’s step-father, Tifre Laguerve, or be killed. Wadner was the first to exit
the home by the back door. He went to the home of a friend and hid for approximately an
hour. Renald carried another younger brother out of the house, returning to retrieve his
younger sister. As he exited the house a second time with his younger sister, Renald was
struck with a rock just below his eye. His mother also was struck by a rock as she fled
from the house, which incapacitated her for several minutes. Renald was subsequently
taken to a local hospital where his injury was bandaged. Renald and Wadner testified
that, prior to the attacks on their homes, they were unaware of any political activity of
Cala Vertus and Tifre Laguerve whom the mobs apparently sought.
After the above events, Renald and Wadner were sent by their families to Port-
au-Prince. They remained there until they flew with a family friend, Merlene Norde, to
New York. They planned to stay over one night in New York and then to continue on to
Paris, where their father resides. Their journey ended in New York, however, when they
were stopped by the INS for attempting to use false passports. Renald testified that his
1
Wadner was unsure whether the group was the same group of people which had
attacked his home. J.A. 195.
3
mother and step-father remain in hiding to this day. In fact, his mother urged him not to
return home. She has informed Renald that the pro-governmental individuals who had
targeted their home in November continue to search for him.2
The IJ denied Renald and Wadner’s applications for asylum, concluding that they
had not demonstrated persecution “on account of” political opinion. The BIA found the
boys credible, but agreed that they failed to demonstrate that the events took place
because of their political opinion.
II.
Asylum is proper where an alien demonstrates that he qualifies as a refugee who is
unable or unwilling to return to his home country because of “persecut[ion] or who has a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Where a
petitioner fails to establish that he is entitled to asylum, we presume he cannot meet the
higher standard for withholding of removal under the INA and the Torture Convention.
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001); Janusiak v. INS, 947 F.2d 46, 47 (3d
Cir. 1991).3
2
The parties provided supplemental briefing on the current political upheaval in Haiti.
The parties agree that our review is limited to the record which was before the BIA, and
should not include any shift in political conditions in Haiti. See Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d
1233, 1241 (3d. Cir. 1993).
3
Withholding of removal is appropriate where “the Attorney General determines that
such alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8
4
We must affirm the BIA’s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary
determination. Awolesi v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 227, 228 (3d Cir. 2003). Here, the BIA
determined that, although Wadner and Renald were credible, they had not “established a
nexus between what happened to [them] . . . and any of the grounds delineated in the
[INA].”
A careful review of the record reveals only that Renald’s mother has instructed
him not to return to the country because pro-governmental forces believe that he knows
where to find his step-father. She does not, however, indicate that the mobs that attacked
the homes of Renald and Wadner did so because the boys knew where their step-father
and uncle could be found. Nor did either boy testify that they were targeted because of
their relationship with those who opposed the Haitian government. The record reveals
nothing more than the plight of two boys who were in the wrong houses at the wrong
time. Nothing in the record reflects that they would have been treated differently by the
mobs, had the boys been neighbors, friends, or even intruders in the home. Similarly,
nothing in the record indicates that Renald and Wadner would be in any danger if they
relocated to the homes of other relatives, or that any relatives not living with Cala and
Tifre are in danger. We, therefore, conclude that there is insufficient evidence to compel
a reasonable fact finder to arrive at a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA—that the
U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1). An applicant for withholding of removal under the Torture
Convention bears the burden of establishing “that it is more likely than not that he or she
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft,
290 F.3d 166, 174-75 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).
5
boys did not prove that their treatment was because of political opinion. We will affirm
the judgment of the BIA.
6