Filed: Apr. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-20-2009 Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4292 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1517. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1517 This decision is brought to you for free and open acces
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-20-2009 Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4292 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1517. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1517 This decision is brought to you for free and open access..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-20-2009
Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4292
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Mouhamadou Fall v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1517.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1517
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4292
___________
MOUHAMADOU MOUSTAPHA FALL,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A073-536-067)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Andrew R. Arthur
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 17, 2009
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES AND ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 20, 2009 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Mouhamadou Moustapha Fall petitions for review of the BIA’s decision denying
his applications for suspension of deportation, asylum, withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following reasons, we will deny
the petition for review.
Fall, a native and citizen of Senegal, was born in Dakar. He entered the United
States on January 17, 1993, on an F-1 student visa, which authorized him to attend the
University of Nevada in Reno, Nevada. Fall never attended that university. Fall filed an
initial application for asylum on October 30, 1994, with the help of a friend. On July 25,
1995, the government issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing
charging Fall as being a nonimmigrant who failed to maintain or comply with the
conditions of the nonimmigrant status under which he was admitted under INA §
241(a)(1)(C)(i) (1995). Fall never received the OSC, and the case was administratively
closed. He was not ordered removed in absentia.
On March 30, 2007, Fall was convicted of making false statements in an
application for a passport and was sentenced to time served. (A.R. 573.)1 Fall states that
he received a re-issued OSC on July 17, 2007, while in ICE custody. Fall conceded
removability and applied for suspension from deportation, asylum, withholding and
protection under CAT.
At his merits hearing, Fall testified that he is of Jola ethnicity. In the 1980s, he
attended a university in Senegal to study medicine. Students often went on strike to
1
The record indicates that Fall falsely stated that his place of birth was Jackson,
Mississippi. (A.R. 568.)
2
protest the low stipends and overall inadequate conditions. Fall testified that he was
arrested three times during student demonstrations in 1985, 1988, and 1990.
On the first occasion, Fall was arrested along with other students, held in a prison
for a week, and questioned. On the second occasion, he was again arrested and detained
for about a week in filthy conditions. The Criminal Investigations Division (DIC),
charged with investigating student strike leaders, questioned Fall about his ethnic
background and whether he belonged to the MFDC, a Casamance separatist group led by
Jolas. Fall told them that if all Jolas were deemed supportive of MFDC, then he was, too.
On the third occasion, Fall was again arrested along with ten to twenty other students
engaged in a strike. He was jailed for two weeks and occasionally blindfolded and beaten
with a rubber club. His captors questioned him about his motives for striking, but Fall
refused to answer.
In 1988, Fall was expelled from his medical studies, after which he completed a
degree in English literature. Fall testified that two of his sisters applied for asylum in
Italy, but his mother remains in Dakar. He testified that his mother has not experienced
any problems since his last arrest in 1990. His father passed away in 1994.
Fall stated that he fears that the Senegalese government will punish him for his
past involvement in the student movement and his affiliation with the MFDC separatist
group. He also fears “splinter groups” within the MFDC that may target him due to his
western education and his desire not to participate in their activism.
3
The IJ denied all relief. The IJ determined that Fall was ineligible for suspension
of deportation because his conviction for making a false statement in a passport
application was a crime involving moral turpitude. The IJ also determined that Fall had
not testified credibly in support of his asylum, withholding and CAT application, but that
even if he had, Fall had failed to meet his burden of proof of past persecution. The IJ
concluded that Fall had similarly failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution, because his mother remained in Senegal unharmed, and splinter groups
within the MFDC were no longer at odds.
The BIA rejected his due process arguments and his challenge to the IJ’s denial of
suspension of deportation. The BIA also adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision with
respect to asylum, withholding and CAT relief and dismissed his appeal. Fall petitioned
for review.
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of the BIA under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1). Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001). “[W]e review the
IJ’s opinion to the extent the BIA relied upon it.” Lin v. Att’y Gen.,
543 F.3d 114, 119
(3d Cir. 2008). We review the BIA’s and IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
Briseno-Flores v. Att’y Gen.,
492 F.3d 226, 228 (3d Cir. 2007). On appeal, Fall raises
three principal arguments: (1) the government improperly re-issued a 1995 OSC in 2007,
in violation of due process; (2) he is entitled to suspension of deportation because the IJ
implicitly determined that he was of good moral character; and (3) the BIA erroneously
4
denied his applications for asylum, withholding and CAT relief.
Fall’s due process claim lacks merit. To prevail on a due process claim, a
petitioner must show “substantial prejudice.” Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 191
(3d Cir. 2007). The initial charging document contained one charge: violation of the
conditions of non-immigrant status under INA § 241(a)(1)(C)(i) (1995). Although Fall
never received the initial charging document at the time it was issued, no action was taken
at that time, and his case was administratively closed. The government re-issued the OSC
in July 2007, at which time it again charged Fall with noncompliance with the terms of
his non-immigrant visa. Although Fall argues that this delayed re-issuance was improper,
he does not contest that he had failed to comply with the terms of his non-immigrant visa
nor does he suggest that the fact of his noncompliance had changed in the intervening
years. The BIA declined to address Fall’s concerns regarding the charging document on
the basis that the government has prosecutorial discretion, not reviewable by the IJ or the
BIA, to issue an OSC. We conclude that the government has the authority to pursue
removal on grounds previously charged, even though the proceedings against the
petitioner had been administratively closed. See Arca-Pineda v. Att’y Gen.,
527 F.3d
101, 104-05 (3d Cir. 2008) (administrative closure does not terminate immigration
proceedings, but merely removes the case from the immigration judge’s calendar). As
Fall was neither ordered removed in absentia, nor suffered any prejudice as a result of the
delay, he has failed to raise a meritorious due process claim.
5
We similarly conclude that Fall’s claim for suspension of deportation must fail.
The BIA determined that Fall was ineligible for “suspension of deportation,” a form of
relief that was repealed by the passage of IIRIRA and that was replaced by cancellation of
removal under INA § 240A, effective April 1, 1997. See Hernandez v. Gonzales, 437
F.3d 341, 345 (3d Cir. 2006) (comparing suspension of deportation and cancellation of
removal). Suspension of deportation required, in part, that the alien demonstrate that he
has been of good moral character during a requisite period of continuous stay in the
United States.
Hernandez, 437 F.3d at 345. The BIA determined that Fall had not
satisfied this requirement because he had been convicted of making a false statement in a
passport application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, and that this was a crime involving
moral turpitude. Matter of Correa-Garces, 20 I. & N. Dec. 451, 454 (BIA 1992); see also
Rodriguez v. Gonzales,
451 F.3d 60, 61 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1542 is a
crime involving moral turpitude). As this Court lacks jurisdiction over an IJ’s
discretionary determination regarding moral character, we will dismiss Fall’s petition as
to the BIA’s ruling on suspension of deportation.2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see
2
Fall contends that the IJ implicitly determined that he was of good moral character
because he offered him voluntary departure, a requirement of which is that the petitioner
be of good moral character. However, the transcripts reveal that the IJ did not actually
consider petitioner’s moral character in determining his eligibility for voluntary departure.
The IJ, however, did explicitly consider moral character when evaluating petitioner’s
claim for cancellation of removal and determined that petitioner’s conviction tainted his
character. Therefore, we find no contradiction between the IJ’s grant of voluntary
departure and his finding that Fall was ineligible for cancellation of removal.
6
Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176, 178 (3d Cir. 2003).
We also determine that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to deny
Fall asylum, withholding of removal or relief under CAT. The BIA agreed with the IJ
that Fall lacked credibility because of inconsistencies between his 1994 asylum
application and his testimony at the hearing, but that even if Fall had testified credibly, he
had failed to meet his burden of proof. In particular, Fall did not testify that he suffered
any extreme harm that would constitute persecution. See Wong v. Att’y Gen., 539 F.3d
225, 232 (3d Cir. 2008)(discussing definition of persecution). He did not testify that he
suffered any serious injuries, nor that he ever sought medical help as a result of his
detentions. Accordingly, we may not disturb the BIA’s conclusion regarding past
persecution.
We also agree with the IJ and BIA that Fall lacked a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Fall’s own testimony indicated that he had not experienced any trouble with
the Senagalese government during his last three years in the country (1990-1993), nor has
his mother, who remains in Dakar, experienced trouble in recent years. See Lie v.
Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen family members remain in
petitioner’s native country without meeting harm, and there is no individualized showing
that petitioner would be singled out for persecution, the reasonableness of a petitioner’s
well-founded fear of future persecution is diminished.”). Although Fall states that his
sisters have received asylum in Italy, he does not state the bases of their claims nor
7
contend that the standards for asylum in Italy and the United States are comparable. In
light of his mother’s continued existence in Dakar, unharmed, as well as his ability to live
in Senegal for several years unharmed, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s decision regarding future persecution.
Finally, we find no error in the BIA’s decision denying withholding of removal
and CAT relief. A denial of asylum necessarily requires that Fall’s claim for withholding
be rejected as well. Yu v. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 346, 349 (3d Cir. 2008). Similarly, the
record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Fall will suffer
torture if he is not granted relief. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision to
deny Fall’s CAT claim. Accordingly, to the extent that we have jurisdiction, we will deny
Fall’s petition for review.
8
