DocketNumber: 10-5292
Citation Numbers: 399 U.S. App. D.C. 381, 670 F.3d 1311
Judges: Tatel, Garland, Griffith
Filed Date: 2/7/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED ~nit£b ~tat£z QIourt of J\pp£alz FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 16,2011 Decided January 27,2012 No. 10-5292 ABDUL-RAHMAN ABDO ABULGHAITH SULEIMAN, ApPELLANT v. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT, ET AL., ApPELLEES Appeal frOlu the United States District Court for the District of Colmubia (No.1 :05-cv-02386) Thomas P. Sullivan argued the cause for the appellant. With hilu on the briefs was Som P. Dalal. John A. Drennan argued the cause for the appellees. With hin1 on the briefs were Tony West and Robert M. Loeb. Before: TATEL, GARLAND, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 2 GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: * Abdul-Rahman Abdo Abulghaith Sulei111an appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention at Guantanamo Bay. For the reasons set forth below, we affin11 the district court's order. I Sulei111an's appeal challenges both the finding of the district court that he was part of the Taliban and its conclusion that such a finding justifies his detention. On this latter point, Suleiman argues that detention based solely on being part of the Taliban violates the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Constitution and is not pennitted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), § 2(a), Pub. L. No. 107-40,115 Stat. 224
, 224 (2001) (reprinted at50 U.S.C. § 1541
note). But we need not take up these legal argunlents because Suleiman failed to make them below. See Salazar v. District of ColUlnbia,602 F.3d 431
, 436 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("To preserve a clai111 of en-or on appeal, a party typically must raise the issue before the trial court .... 'No procedural principle is l110re familiar ... than that a ... right 111ay be forfeited in crinlinal as well as civil cases by the failure to 111ake timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to detenlline it. '" (quoting In re Sealed Case,552 F.3d 841
, 851-52 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation 111 arks omitted)). In any event, our precedent provides a clear rule of decision: if Suleiman was part of the Taliban, he can be detained. See Al Alwi v. Obama,653 F.3d 11
, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ("As this cou1i has now repeatedly * NOTE: Portions of this opinion contain Classified Information, which has been redacted. PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 3 held, the AUMF 'gives the United States government the authority to detain a person who is found to have been "part of' al Qaeda or Taliban forces.'" (quoting Al Odah, 611 F.3d at 10)). The only issue we need examine then is whether the district court erred in concluding that Suleiman was part of the Taliban. That detenllination is a mixed question of law and fact. See Awad v. Obama,608 F.3d 1
, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("Detennining whether Awad is 'part of al Qaeda is a mixed question of law and fact."). The district couli's findings about what actually occurred - the route Suleiman traveled, where he stayed, and what he did - are questions of fact we review for clear error. Whether those facts are sufficient to conclude that Suleiman was part of the Taliban is a question of law that we review de novo. On both questions, we affinn the district court. II Although there was contested evidence about Suleiman's alleged relationship to Al Qaeda, the district couli based its decision on three unchallenged pieces of evidence: Suleilllan's own testimony before the district court; a Federal Bureau of Investigation field docUlllent sumlllarizing an April 17, 2002, interview; and a Departlllent of Defense record of an August 19, 2004, interview. See Sulayman v. Obwna,729 F. Supp. 2d 26
,42 (D.D.C. 2010). Suleilllan was born in Taiz, Yelllen, in 1979. Shortly after completing high school, he n1et a Taliban recruiter named Abu Khulud at a lllosque in Taiz. Suleiman claims that he did not know that Khulud was a Taliban recruiter when they met. PUBLIC COpy - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 4 Khulud suggested that Sulein1an travel to Afghanistan, where he could own a home and find a wife, and Sulein1an agreed to go. Khulud provided hin1 with a Yelneni passport, an airplane ticket to Karachi, Pakistan, and $100 cash. Once in Karachi, Suleilnan took a bus to Quetta, Pakistan, where he stopped for an hour at the Daftur guesthouse, which Khulud had told Suleilnan was affiliated with the Taliban. Suleilnan next traveled by car from Quetta over the border at Spin Buldak to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and stayed for approxin1ately two weeks at a guesthouse that he described as "the Arab house," which had "Afghan guards" and "weapons stored in a slnall rOOln." FrOln Kandahar, Suleiman traveled to Kabul and stayed for seven months at a guesthouse owned by a Yemeni national, Hamza Al-Qa'eity, who lived there with his farnily. While there, Suleiman paid for neither his food nor his lodging, Inade no attempt to find a wife or job, and did no work. He clailns he spent his time eating, sleeping, reading, and praying. Others living at the Al-Qa'eity guesthouse while Suleiman was there traveled to and from the nearby battlefront to fight with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. Suleilnan hilnself twice visited an area he described as a "safe place" that was used by Taliban fighters as a staging area for final preparations before fighting at the front. On his first visit, which took place while he was living with AI-Qa'eity, Suleilnan stayed for seven days and fired a machine gun, although he clailns he did so only for an1usement. His second visit, which lasted twelve days, can1e as he was fleeing Kabul to escape aerial bOlnbing by the United States in retaliation for the attacks of Septelnber 11, 2001, and the don1estic reprisals following the assassination PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 5 of Northern Alliance leader Alu11ad Shah Massoud. During this second visit to the Taliban "safe place," Sulei111an was aImed with an AK-47. FrOl11 there, he l11ade his way toward Pakistan and into the mountains outside Jalalabad. He eventually crossed by foot into Pakistan, where he was captured by Pakistani authorities in late December 2001. Soon after, he was transferred to the custody of the United States l11ilitary, and in February 2002, he was sent to Guantana1110 Bay. III Our task is to dete1111ine whether this undisputed evidence provides a legally adequate basis for the district court's conclusion that Sulei111an was part of the Taliban. We have previously stated that "the purely independent conduct of a freelancer is not enough to establish that an individual is 'part of al-Qaida," and the same is true for being part of the Taliban. Salahi v. Obama,625 F.3d 745
,752 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bensayah v. Obama, 610 FJd 718, 725 (D.C. Cir. 2010)). But the facts here show that Suleiman was no freelancer. There is no dispute that Suleil11an' s travel was initiated at the suggestion of and facilitated by a Taliban recruiter, and that he traveled a well-wo111 path to Afghanistan frequently used by Taliban recruits. We have stated that such travel 111ay indicate that an individual traveled to Afghanistan to join the Taliban. See Al Odah v. United States,611 F.3d 8
, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("[I]nterrogation reports of a third party concerning al Qaeda and Taliban travel routes into Afghanistan . . . although far from conclusive ... suggest[] that an individual using this travel route to reach Kandahar l11ay have done so PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 6 because it was a route used by SOlTIe individuals seeking to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of jihad." (internal citations OlTIitted)). And Suleinlan did lTIuch lTIOre than travel the route of a Taliban recruit. He lived at the Al-Qa'eity guesthouse for seven nl0nths. Suleiman argues that he was allowed to live there out of charity, and that he did nothing more while there than eat, sleep, read, and pray. The district court did not find this explanation credible, and we find no clear error in its credibility determination. The Al-Qa'eity guesthouse was hardly the monastery for contenlplation that SuleilTIan suggests. His Taliban fighter housenlates used it as a base to travel to and frOlTI the battlefront during the tilTIe Suleiman was there. See SulaYl1'zan,729 F. Supp. 2d at 47
. We have previously held that "a voluntary decision to lTIOVe to an al- Qaida guesthouse, a staging area for recruits heading for a nlilitary training cmTIp, makes it lTIOre likely - indeed, very likely - that [the individual] was himself a recruit." Al-Adahi v. Obama,613 F.3d 1102
, 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The sanle is true for a stay at a Taliban guesthouse. Suleiman was hardly stopping by; he spent seven nl0nths there. In addition, the ermTIent introduced a declaration before the district couli e serv as a an-spons guesthouse for Arab lTIujahedeen in Kandahar" and "was used as a transition point and in-processing location for individuals going to train at various training camps." Id. at 31. The PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORlVIATION DELETED 7 Finally, we see no enor in the district court's conclusion that Taliban fighters would be unlikely to allow an armed Suleiman to twice visit their staging area and be among fighters preparing for battle unless he was part of them. See Sulayman,729 F. Supp. 2d at 52
. From these undisputed facts, we conclude that the evidence on which the district court relied was sufficient to determine that Suleiman was more likely than not part of the Taliban. Because these facts alone are enough to support our conclusion, we agree with the district court that the government's other claims regarding Suleiman's alleged activities in Afghanistan need not be considered. ld. at 44 n.14. Suleilnan also seeks leave to file a supplemental appendix that includes a new translation of his October 27, 2004, Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) testimony. We grant the motion and conclude that there are no significant differences in the new translation of the CSRT that change our analysis. PUBLIC COPY - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DELETED 8 IV F or the foregoing reasons, the order of the district couli is Affirmed.