Satkauskas v. Atty Gen USA , 176 F. App'x 271 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2006 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    4-18-2006
    Satkauskas v. Atty Gen USA
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 05-3211
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
    Recommended Citation
    "Satkauskas v. Atty Gen USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1255.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1255
    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 2006 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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-3211
    ________________
    MARTYNAS SATKAUSKAS,
    Petitioner
    vs.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    Agency No. A95 377 385
    on May 25, 2005
    Immigration Judge: Esmeralda Cabrera
    _______________________________________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    April 13, 2006
    Before: FISHER, ALDISERT, WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
    (Filed: April 18, 2006)
    _______________________
    OPINION
    _______________________
    PER CURIAM.
    Martynas Satkauskas, a native and citizen of Lithuania, petitions for review
    of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. For the reasons that follow, the petition
    will be denied.
    Satkauskas is a native and citizen of Lithuania. He arrived in the United
    States in June of 1998 on a J-1 exchange visitor visa, and was admitted for duration of
    status, but failed to maintain status. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal and
    protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on
    persecution he alleges he experienced as a homosexual in Lithuania. An Immigration
    Judge (IJ) found that Satkauskas’ application for asylum was not timely filed within one
    year of his arrival, but found that even if the application was not barred, he had not met
    his burden of proof for asylum. The IJ noted some discrepancies between Satkauskas’
    oral testimony and his written submissions concerning how long he was hospitalized
    following a beating, and also questioned whether Satkauskas would remain in Lithuania
    to complete his university studies if he really feared persecution. The IJ found that
    because Satkauskas did not meet the burden of showing eligibility for asylum, he
    necessarily did not meet the higher burden for withholding of removal and did not
    establish a claim for protection under the CAT.
    On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Satkauskas
    challenged the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, arguing that the discrepancy regarding the
    number of days he was in hospital was immaterial, and explaining why he was unable to
    leave Lithuania earlier. The BIA dismissed the appeal, finding that Satkauskas had not
    established that his asylum application had been filed within a year, nor that he met any
    of the exceptions to the time-bar. The BIA also held “assuming the respondent’s
    credibility, he has not established that it is more likely than not that he would be
    persecuted or tortured upon return to Lithuania.”
    Satkauskas then filed a petition for review. The Government argues that the
    petition should be dismissed because it was untimely filed. However, although the
    petition was not filed in this Court until June 27, 2005, Satkauskas did timely file it, albeit
    in the wrong court, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
    June 24, 2005. That Court stamped the petition on June 24, 2005, and forwarded it to this
    Court for filing pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1631
    . We therefore have jurisdiction to consider
    the petition.
    In his brief, Satkauskas argues only that the IJ did not believe that he is gay
    and that her decision was based on her personal view in violation of due process. He
    argues that if he is returned to his country, he will be persecuted.
    The BIA’s determination that a petitioner will not face “persecution” or
    does not have a “well-founded fear of persecution” are findings of fact that we review
    under the deferential substantial evidence standard. Abdille v. Ashcroft, 
    242 F.3d 477
    ,
    483-84 (3d Cir. 2001). The BIA’s findings thus must be upheld “unless the evidence not
    only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” 
    Id.
     As noted above, the BIA did
    not base its decision on an adverse credibility finding; rather, it determined that
    Satkauskas had not met his burden of showing that it was more likely than not that he
    would be persecuted upon return to Lithuania. Upon review of the record, we find that
    the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. The petition is therefore denied.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3211

Citation Numbers: 176 F. App'x 271

Filed Date: 4/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021