Said v. Atty Gen USA , 312 F. App'x 500 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-19-2009
Said v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1129
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Said v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1855.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1855
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-1129
MAZEN FATHI SAID,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A74 304 372
Immigration Judge: Roxanne Hladylowycz
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 18, 2009
Before: AMBRO, FISHER and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 19, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Mazen Fathi Said petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision ordering his
removal and denying his application for statutory withholding of removal and
withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We will deny the petition for review.
The parties are already familiar with the facts of this case. Therefore, we limit our
discussion to those facts essential to our decision. Said, a Palestinian Muslim, is a native
and citizen of Israel. He entered the United States in 1993 as a visitor, and adjusted his
status to that of lawful permanent resident in 1996. On January 21, 2005, Said was
convicted in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania for the offense of burglary and theft by
unlawful taking or disposition and theft of trade secrets. He was placed in removal
proceedings for having committed an aggravated felony.1 Said applied for withholding of
removal and protection under the CAT. Said produced a copy of an article from a
Norristown, Pennsylvania newspaper reporting his crime. A.R. 220-21. The article
quoted a Magistrate Judge as saying that Said’s bail was set at $2 million because of
“possible links to money laundering for terrorist organizations.” Said argued that Israeli
officials would learn of these accusations and subject him to persecution and torture.
Said also produced evidence that two of his brothers and one cousin were imprisoned and
tortured by the Israeli government for anti-Israeli activities. His brother Munir Said was
convicted in 1989 for spying for the Iraqi government. He was sentenced to and served
13 years in prison. A.R. 210. His affidavit alleges that he was tortured in prison. Said’s
1
Said does not challenge his removability in this petition for review.
2
brother Nader was arrested in 1989 and accused of fundraising and money laundering for
the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He served more than two years in prison, and
also alleges that he was tortured. Said also produced newspaper articles regarding his
brothers and their convictions. A.R. 224-36 Said argued that their political opinions
would be imputed to him, which would also lead to his persecution and torture.
The IJ denied relief,2 finding that Said’s claim that the Israeli officials had or
would learn of the terrorism accusation was speculative. She also found that he had not
shown that he could not relocate to some other part of Israel to escape persecution. On
appeal, the BIA dismissed the appeal, agreeing that Said had not met his burden of
showing that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted or tortured upon his
return to Israel. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Said had not established that the Israeli
Government would treat him as a terrorist suspect, even if it had or did become aware of
the newspaper article mentioned above. The BIA also held that Said had “not established
that he is similarly situated to his brothers or cousin who were allegedly tortured while
detained by the Israeli government,” and had “failed to establish that his family members’
anti-Israeli positions will be imputed to him independently or as a result of the attenuated
terrorism-related accusation” of the newspaper article. A.R. 3. The BIA declined to
reach the alternate holding that Said could safely relocate within Israel. Said filed a
2
The IJ also held that Said was statutorily eligible for withholding of removal, as his
crime was not a “particularly serious crime.” Said did not apply for asylum.
3
timely petition for review.
In order to obtain relief under the CAT, an alien must show that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured if he is removed to the country in question. Mulanga v.
Ashcroft, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); 349 F.3d 123, 132 (3d Cir. 2003). To qualify for
statutory withholding of removal, an alien must show that it is more likely than not that he
will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion if returned to the country of removal. Singh v.
Gonzales, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 406 F.3d 191, 196 (3d Cir. 2005). Both forms of
relief are mandatory if the requisite showing is made. Yusupov v. Att’y General, 518
F.3d 185, 188 (3d Cir. 2008); Mulanga, 349 F.3d at 132-33.
We agree with the BIA that Said did not meet his burden of showing that it is more
likely than not that he will be persecuted or tortured in Israel. Although it is possible that
the Israeli government might have learned of the newspaper article, or could learn of it in
the future, we agree with the BIA that the Israeli government is unlikely to consider Said
as a terrorist suspect based on a statement in a local U.S. newspaper that his bail was set
at a high level because of “possible links to money laundering for terrorist organizations.”
We further agree that the political views of his brothers, who were accused of anti-Israeli
activities nearly twenty years ago, will not necessarily be imputed to him. Said
acknowledged that in the past when he made trips to Israel, even though he was carefully
searched and questioned, he was always allowed to enter and leave Israel. A.R. 169-71.
4
Even if one considers the combined fact that a newspaper obliquely linked Said to
terrorism, and that Said has relatives who were convicted of anti-Israeli crimes, we hold
that the likelihood that Said will be persecuted or tortured in Israel on those bases is
speculative. Said did not produce evidence showing that someone in his circumstances
would more likely than not be tortured.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
5