Serban Andrei Valcu v. Atty Gen USA
Filing
MANDATE ISSUED, filed.
Serban Andrei Valcu v. Atty Gen USA
Doc. 0 Att. 1
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 1
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2777
SERBAN ANDREI VALCU, Petitioner v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order o f the Board of Immigration Appeals (N o . A097-902-790) Im m ig ra tio n Judge: Hon. R. K. Malloy
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) S e p te m b e r 17, 2010 B e f o re : SLOVITER, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges (F ile d : September 20, 2010)
OPINION
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 2
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
S L O V IT E R , Circuit Judge. S e rb a n Andrei Valcu ("Serban") has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his application for asylum under the Im m ig ra tio n and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). I. Serban, who was approximately seventeen or eighteen years old, entered the U n ite d States in September 2004 after paying to be smuggled over the Mexican border alon g with his older brother, Bogdan Daniel Valcu ("Bogdan"), and his brother's partner, G e o rg e Valentin Ionescu ("George"). All three were subsequently subject to removal p ro c e ed in g s . They conceded removability for entering the United States without having b e e n admitted or paroled, and each applied for asylum and withholding of removal under th e INA and the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). A joint hearing was held and their a p p lic a tio n s were considered simultaneously by the Immigration Judge ("IJ"). Bogdan testified he had suffered past persecution, and feared future persecution, in R o m a n ia because he is gay. He described the "problems he had [in Romania as in c lu d in g ] beatings, cursings, [inability] to find a steady job, and . . . problems at school." A.R. at 108. George, Bogdan's partner, testified that he suffered similar assaults and poor tre a tm e n t. They stated that the police were unwilling to assist them, and in fact attacked b o th men on an occasion when they requested police help. Petitioner Serban testified that his father left Romania in 2001, that his mother left
2
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 3
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
in 2003, and that both came to the United States. When his mother left, Bogdan was a w a y at college and would return home on the weekends, and Serban would take meals w ith neighbors and either stay with them or at his family home. Serban testified that he is n o t gay, but beginning in 1999, when he was twelve or thirteen years old, his classmates b e g a n beating him after learning that his brother Bogdan is gay. These beatings occurred b o th inside and outside of school, and continued until he left for the United States. Additionally, Serban's mother, who was a teacher at his school, told Serban that his te a ch e rs were giving him low grades because of Bogdan, and Serban's family had to bribe h is teachers in order for him to pass his classes. Serban testified that school officials were a p p a re n tly unwilling to help him, and that it would have been pointless to go to the p o lic e . Serban also testified that if he returned to Romania he would have the "[s]ame p ro b le m s " given that "everybody knows about me" in the town of Urzceni where he grew u p . A.R. at 260-61. When asked if he could move in with his grandparents, who resided in a different region of Romania than Serban's hometown, Serban answered, "[n]o," b e c au s e , "[t]he same mentality [towards gays] is everywhere throughout the country." A.R. at 261. However, in response to a question whether he preferred to be in Romania, h e replied, "[y]es, if my brother wasn't gay." A.R. at 274. T h e IJ found that Bogdan and George "testified credibly that they suffered b e a tin g s , cursings, humiliation, inability to find steady employment, and school
3
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 4
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
p ro b lem s" because of their sexual orientation. A.R. at 148-49. The IJ determined that in lig h t of the serious levels of discrimination against gay persons in Romania, Bogdan and G e o rg e suffered past persecution and would likely suffer future persecution on account of th e ir sexual orientation if they returned, and thus granted their applications for asylum. In contrast, the IJ denied Serban's application, explaining that Serban had not " su f f ere d past persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group or a n y other grounds, . . . [and that] Serban [would not] . . . suffer future persecution on a c c o u n t of any of the enumerated grounds" because "[i]f Serban were to return alone to R o m a n ia , he should be able to escape the stigma of his brother's homosexual status." A.R. at 150. The IJ did not address Serban's applications for withholding of removal. T h e BIA dismissed Serban's appeal. Although the BIA assumed, without d e c id in g , that Serban's testimony was credible, and held that "[a] family may constitute a p a rtic u la r social group," 1 it held that Serban had failed to show either "[1] that other m e m b e rs of his family were targeted by his attackers on account of their relationship to h is brother or [2] that he himself was attacked due to his relationship to his brother rather than due to a desire on the part of the attackers to punish his brother." A.R. at 4-5 (c ita tio n omitted). Alternatively, the BIA held that even if it were to assume former p e rs e c u tio n , "any presumption of future persecution is rebutted by the fact that [Serban]
The Government does not contest on appeal that Serban's f a m ily constitutes a "social group" under 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 )( A ). 4
1
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 5
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
n o w would return to Romania without his brother." A.R. at 5 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(1 )(i)(A ) (presumption of future persecution can be rebutted by showing of "a f u n d a m e n ta l change in circumstances")). Finally, the BIA held that Serban did not " o f f e r[ ] any information on appeal to establish that he was prejudiced by the lack of an e x p lic it determination on his eligibility for withholding of removal under the" INA or the C A T . A.R. at 5. Serban timely petitioned this court for review. II.2 "Because the BIA issued an opinion, rather than a summary affirmance, we re v ie w the BIA's (rather than the IJ's) decision." Espinosa-Cortez v. Att'y Gen., 607 F.3d 1 0 1 , 106 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "We affirm any f in d in g s of fact supported by substantial evidence and are `bound by the administrative fin d ing s of fact unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to arrive at a contrary co n clus ion .'" 3 Camara v. Att'y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Yan Lan W u v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 2005)). "[W]e review the BIA's legal c o n c lu s io n s de novo, including both pure questions of law and applications of law to
2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
Whether, for asylum purposes, a petitioner has proven that h e or she has a well-founded fear of persecution "is a question of f a ct . . . ." Gomez-Zuluaga v. Att'y Gen., 527 F.3d 330, 340 (3d C ir. 2008) (citing Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2 0 0 3 )). Similarly, a determination of the future probability of p e rs e c u tio n is also a fact. Cf. Kaplun v. Att'y Gen., 602 F.3d 260, 2 7 1 (3d Cir. 2010). 5
3
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 6
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
u n d is p u te d facts." Rranci v. Att'y Gen., 540 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing F r a n c o is v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 645, 648 (3d Cir. 2006)). A n applicant can qualify for asylum as a refugee if he or she proves "past p e rse c u tio n . . . ." 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b); see also id. § 208.13(a). If an applicant does so, a presumption arises that if returned to his or her country of origin, the applicant will a g a in be persecuted. See id. § 208.13(b)(1). The Government can rebut that presumption b y showing by a preponderance of the evidence that "[t]here has been a fundamental c h a n g e in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of p e rs e c u tio n in the applicant's country of nationality . . . ." Id. § 208.13(b)(l)(i)(A); see a ls o id. § 208.13(b)(1)(ii). T h e BIA's conclusion that Serban failed to establish a nexus between the attacks o n him and his brother's sexual orientation because Serban did not testify that his a tta c k ers targeted his other family members is not supported by substantial evidence.4
The Government argues that Serban failed to establish a n e x u s between his familial membership and his persecution "absent . . . any indication that the students [who attacked Serban] m e n tio n e d Serban's brother, let alone his brother's sexuality, when h e was harmed." Appellee's Br. at 24-25. However, neither the IJ n o r the BIA employed this rationale. Serban who apparently was n e v e r asked by the Government if his attackers made such re p re se n ta tio n s has consistently asserted conclusive knowledge th a t he was attacked because of his brother's sexual orientation. As th e BIA assumed Serban's credibility, we have little basis to q u estio n that assertion, which was corroborated by Bogdan's te s tim o n y, see A.R. at 203, was supported by statements Serban a ttr ib u te d to his mother, see A.R. at 254-55, and which flows 6
4
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 7
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
S e rb a n testified that it was his classmates who attacked him. It is unsurprising that S e rb a n 's classmates, who during the relevant times would have been from about thirteen ye a rs of age to about seventeen years of age, would not have attacked Serban's father w h o was a grown man, Serban's mother, who was a teacher at Serban's school, or S e rb a n 's brother, who was older. Indeed, Serban's mother and brother were harassed by th e ir own peer groups, as Serban was by his. We are unpersuaded by the BIA's reasoning that because Serban failed to present e v id e n c e that the beatings he suffered were committed out of anything other than a " d e sire on the part of the attackers to punish" Bogdan, A.R. at 5, Serban failed to show th a t the beatings were "on account of" Serban's membership in the family group, 8 U .S .C . § 1101(a)(42)(A). Such attacks were obviously committed "due to [Serban's] re latio n sh ip to his brother." A.R. at 4-5. Indeed, the familial relationship was the basis f o r the attacks. Neither the BIA nor the Government has offered a principled explanation f o r the BIA's contrary conclusion. On the other hand, we conclude that there is ample basis to uphold the BIA's f in d in g that the presumption arising from Serban's past persecution was rebutted by the f a ct that, as Bogdan testified, Serban would be returning to Romania alone, as Bogdan te stif ie d he would not return if granted asylum. Thus, there has been a "fundamental
logically from the description provided by Serban and Bogdan of th e conditions in their small town, as well as the country conditions th a t the IJ found exist in Romania generally. 7
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 8
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
c h a n g e in circumstances" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A). Serban h a s graduated from high school and when he returns to Romania he will be about twenty f o u r years old. There was no evidence presented that as an adult Serban will suffer the s a m e level of persecution that he did as a child. These facts, without countervailing ev iden ce submitted by Serban, constitute sufficient evidence to support the BIA's d e te rm in a tio n that the presumption of future persecution has been rebutted. Although the IJ did not reach Serban's other claims, the BIA held that this same re a so n in g precludes withholding relief under both the INA, which requires a higher s ta n d a rd of proof than a grant of asylum, and under the CAT, which requires a finding of a future probability, i.e., over a fifty percent chance, of torture. See Gambashidze v. A sh c ro ft, 381 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Auguste v. Ridge, 3 9 5 F.3d 123, 149 (3d Cir. 2005). S e rb a n 's due process claim fails because in cases other than those implicating f u n d a m e n ta l rights, an appellant must show prejudice in order to establish a violation. See Leslie v. Att'y Gen., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 2680763, at *2 (3d Cir. 2010) (" a lle g a tio n s of due process violations must ordinarily be accompanied by an initial s h o w in g of substantial prejudice . . . ." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Serban has failed to do so here. III. Conclusion
8
Case: 09-2777 Document: 003110345654 Page: 9
Date Filed: 11/12/2010
For the reasons set forth above, we will deny Serban's petition for review.
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?