Christian Araujo v. Attorney General United States
684 F. App'x 138
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Christian Araujo, a native of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. without authorization in 1989.
- In 2014 he was convicted in federal court for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and classified as an aggravated felon.
- Immigration authorities ordered him removed under the aggravated-felon removal provision; Araujo conceded removability.
- Araujo sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming likely torture by criminal gangs and corrupt police if returned.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied CAT relief for lack of clear probability of torture with government acquiescence; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- Araujo petitioned for review in the Third Circuit, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because his claims raised factual, not legal or constitutional, questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Araujo met burden to show more-likely-than-not he would be tortured if removed | Araujo contended it is more likely than not he will be tortured by gangs and corrupt police in the Dominican Republic | Agency found the record did not establish the requisite likelihood of torture | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because this is a factual determination not reviewable here |
| Whether the Dominican Republic would acquiesce in torture | Araujo argued his prior service as a Dominican police officer and country conditions show likely government acquiescence | Agency concluded government acquiescence was unlikely based on record | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; acquiescence is a factual finding excluded from §1252 review |
| Whether the IJ/BIA misapplied CAT legal standards | Araujo did not assert a misapplication of law or a constitutional violation | Government maintained the IJ applied correct legal standards and weighed evidence | Court found no legal question presented and lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court may reweigh evidence or overturn factual findings | Araujo asked the court effectively to reweigh and reverse the factual findings | Government argued factual-review claims are barred by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C)–(D) for aggravated felons | Court held reweighing evidence is a factual challenge and not reviewable, so petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. 2012) (government acquiescence in torture is a factual determination not subject to review under §1252(a)(2)(C)–(D))
- Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (challenges that the IJ or BIA incorrectly weighed evidence are not questions of law under §1252(a)(2)(D))