Joshim Uddin v. Attorney General United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17185
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Joshim Uddin, a Bangladeshi national, joined the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) in Feb. 2008, became a district publicity officer, and later continued party involvement after arriving in the U.S.; he applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection.
- The IJ found abundant record evidence that BNP members engaged in violent acts during election-related unrest and concluded the BNP qualified as a Tier III terrorist organization, rendering Uddin ineligible for withholding of removal; the IJ denied CAT relief on credibility and corroboration grounds.
- The Board affirmed the terrorism-bar determination and deemed Uddin’s CAT claim waived/summarily dismissed for lack of specificity on appeal.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo the legal question whether an undesignated group may be a Tier III terrorist organization and reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence.
- The panel held the Board erred by failing to determine whether BNP leadership authorized the alleged terrorist acts; remanded the withholding claim for the Board to address authorization; affirmed dismissal of the CAT claim.
Issues
| Issue | Uddin's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BNP may be deemed a Tier III terrorist organization based solely on members’ acts | BNP members’ isolated acts do not make the party a terrorist organization; authorization required | Evidence of extensive violent acts by BNP members/"opposition activists" suffices to classify BNP as Tier III | A group cannot be Tier III based only on members’ acts; agency must find leaders authorized or ratified the terrorist activity (remand) |
| Standard for proving Tier III status and burdens | (implicit) Agency must meet statutory showing; petitioner bears rebuttal burden | Government must introduce evidence indicating Tier III status; burden then shifts to alien to rebut | Confirmed regulatory burden-shifting; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence |
| Scope of "subgroup" in Tier III definition | Group cannot be rendered terrorist by recharacterizing members as an ad hoc subgroup | Government may treat a violent component as a subgroup qualifying the whole group | Court (and concurrence) endorses limiting "subgroup" to significant, affiliated, subordinate units dependent on the larger group |
| Board’s dismissal of CAT claim for lack of specificity | Board erred by treating claim as waived; should have considered CAT given IJ’s analysis | Claim was not meaningfully raised; Board permissibly summarily dismissed for lack of specific grounds | Affirmed: Board did not abuse discretion in summarily dismissing CAT claim for lack of specificity |
Key Cases Cited
- Sesay v. Att’y Gen., 787 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2015) (substantial-evidence standard for agency factual findings)
- Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att’y Gen., 781 F.3d 677 (3d Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing BIA factfinding)
- Oliva-Ramos v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2012) (reviewing BIA decisions that defer to IJ factfinding)
- Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) (deference and review where BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
- Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2008) (BIA may summarily dismiss appeals lacking specificity)
- Khan v. Holder, 766 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (authorization by leadership is required to impute terrorist status to an entire organization)
- Hussain v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008) (organization not a terrorist organization solely because a member commits violence without authorization)
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1982) (principles on group liability and expressive association referenced for constitutional-avoidance context)