David Wachira Ngarurih v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

аctually assigned; God- level base offense NGARURIH, Petitioner, David Wachira exception

win merely out carves underlying offense base cases where criminal upon based was increased level ASHCROFT, Attorney General John D. not related

history other factors or States, Respondent. of the United offense conduct. obviously a factor that Drug quantity is No. 03-1144. directly offense upon underlying

bears Appeals, of United States Court that Con- goes saying It without itself. Circuit. Fourth trafficking treat has elected to gress drug quantities a more serious greater Argued: 2004. Jan. trafficking lesser crime than June Decided: drug the inclusion amounts. in the

quantity as a factor determination underlying offense level is consistent section 2X3.1 of policy

with the behind severely who act

“punish[ing] more those more seri-

as accessories-after-the-fact Godwin, 253 F.3d at 788

ous crimes.” Girardi

(citing proposition underlying

drug relates quantity not be known

offense and need 2X3.1). purposes of

accessory for section sum, we conclude under Guidelines, Sentencing

section 2X3.1 the drug-related for a

the base offense level offense” should include

“underlying quantity drugs on the

increase based

involved, regard to whether the without knew, reasonably should have

defendant

known, the amount involved.

III. reasons, foregoing

For the we affirm

convictions of Cross based the sufficien-

cy of the evidence. We vacate sen- court, by the district howev- imposed

tence light

er, resentencing remand opinion. PART, IN IN

AFFIRMED VACATED

PART, AND REMANDED appeals to alter permit

does not court BIA allowed for volun- tary by reinstating or departure, either According- staying departure pеriod. for ly, review denied. petition the I.

Ngarurih is a native and citizen of Ken- May in ya who entered the United States a student visa. nonimmigrant on Schrag, Philip Cen- ARGUED: Gordon Ngarurih asylum filed an for in application Studies, Georgetown Legal Applied ter for May alleging perse- that he had been D.C., Center, Washington, University Law Kenyan government due cuted Misir, Nirmala Deborah for Petitioner. Arap his criticisms of President Daniel Division, Office of Attorney, Trial Civil farming poli- government’s Moi and his tea Litigation, De- Immigration United States cies. Justice, D.C., Washington, for partment of Ngarurih began farming por- tea on a n Respondent. ON BRIEF: Peter D.Keis- early father’s land in the 1990s. of his General, ler, Attorney Papú San- Assistant tea Kenyan government owned the dhu, Division, Litigation, Senior Civil Of- plants right to cultivate and licensed license,' tea farmers them. Under Litigation, of Immigration fice United plantations their required were maintain Justice, Washington, Department States in accordance with instructions issued D.C., Respondent. for Authority Development Tea (“KTDA”); farmers neither increase could GREGORY, WILKINSON, and Before plants they nor the number of tea decrease SHEDD, Judges. Circuit Fail- approval. cultivated without.KTDA comply

ure with the of the conditions fine, in imprison- could result a license ment, or both. required were to sell Licensed farmers

Judge opinion GREGORY wrote an KTDA, their which marketed tea dissenting concurring part part. in internationally. Although the tea market KTDA tea the international sold OPINION per shillings kilogram, paid for 40 'it tea SHEDD, Judge: Circuit shillings per kilogram. farmers typically inadequate This was payment Immigration Appeals Board of production, cover the costs so that tea (“BIA”) denying David affirmed always were farmers almost debt. Ngarurih’s request asylum for Wachira 1992, Ngarurih pub- and some friends granting departure. but Within licly policies KTDA’s protested the shortly time for permitted they longer would no sell announced before the their to the KTDA. other farmers tea Soon expired, Ngarurih petition filed began discussing widespread boycott of Applying review. narrow standards of Ngarurih organized the KTDA. then prescribed by Congress im- review KTDA tea processing march to the local statute, migration we concludе that factory accounting to demand an BIA’s denial of is neither manifest- that had been withheld from profits excess ly contrary to law nor an abuse of discre- boycott farmers. As result production Ngarurih organized," tion. further that the statute tea We conclude Kenya’s Central Province dramati- slowed other leaders. The officers then took cally.1 Ngarurih to a prison, Ngarurih where stripped of his placed clothes and in a dark July Ngarurih organized

On cement cell. The cell had light, no no march to protest take the farmers’ to local windows, and no week, toilet. For government one officials the Central Prov- prison thirty joined ince. Some thousand officials people flooded the cell with cold crowd, this march. spoke ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍to the water at irregular intervals. The water denouncing the policies KTDA’s and the fell, level rose and often rising to the level government’s Moi failure to address the chest. could not poor needs of farmers. The district com- sleep, eat or nor was he allowed contact missionеr heard the farmers’ protests and with other people. During period, this asked that a committee him present writ- Ngarurih experienced hallucinations ten Among demands. the farmers’ de- which he saw separate himself from his mands were the district tea committee body, own floating in part another dissolved, be that certain licenses and tax- cell. Prison Ngarurih officials moved into eliminated, es be and that the KTDA de- dry solitary cell, confinement where he centralize management of factories and in- remained for several months.2 monthly crease payments to farmers. being After jail relocated to the in his march, A days July few after the district, home Ngarurih was tried on a security Ngarurih officers escorted charge of treason. The magistrate local home of the district commissioner. Ac- charge dismissed the for lack of evidence cording Ngarurih, the district commis- and ordered Ngarurih released. Local au- sioner him offered a bribe to off call thorities immediately charged Ngarurih boycott of Ngarurih the KTDA. refused with breach of peace. magistrate Shortly incident, the offer. after offered to Ngarurih release if he would President Moi issued statement warning post a bond of one million shillings “those and inciting the farmers” to end the boycott agree.to refrain political activity or face “dire consequences.” Con- cerned for safety, Ngarurih year. his one magistrate’s went into Under the condi- hiding. After hearing tions, that other tea farm- Ngarurih could not meet with more arrested, being ers were Ngarurih surren- Kenyans than three at a time or leave his dered to district early authorities in Au- permission. home district without Ngaru- gust 1992. rih would have to report police to local every officials Ngarurih other week.

Ngarurih testified that three officers agreed conditions, to these and other tea him took from his cell police at the local money farmers raised the station, (pledging their him, handcuffed and blindfolded land security) satisfy titles as area, and drove him to a wooded bond. where they eight after about demanded that he months of name the other deten- tion, boycott. leaders of the Ngarurih Under threat of custody was released from execution, Ngarurih identify refused to in early April 1993. Kenya

1. provinces, is divided into seven long Ngarurih each It is unclear how remained form, prison. original of which is further divided into districts com- In 1-589 Ngarurih prised kept solitary stated that villages. he was of smaller The Central Prov- prison confinement at the for two months. In just ince is located north of Nairobi. affidavit, a later he stated that had he come to spent believe that he six months there. and Immigration Natural- face another confrontation eminent. than Rather (“INS”) decided Ngarurih commenced remov- government, with the ization Service of three help With the Kenya, leave conceded that Ngarurih al proceedings.3 district, volunteers Corps Peace asylum, applied he was removable and to enter Ngarurih student visa obtained removal, un- withholding protection Ngarurih in May 1995. States United Against the Convention Torture. der College in Okla- Gregory’s attended St. he should be Ngarurih asserted that homa, played he basketbаll where past perse- refugee on his deemed based in business. degree an associate’s earned addition, asserted Ngarurih cution. in interna- Ngarurih degree later earned a had a fear of future that he well-founded management from the Uni- tional business (1) President Moi re- persecution because Francisco. versity of San (2) power, Kenyan authorities mained returned to June Ngarurih (3) tactics, employ torture continued learning younger after broth- likely would come these au- reared Njoka er had' outspoken politi- attention —whom thorities’ Njoka jailed. from childhood—had been opponent. cal defiling a guilty to two counts of pled (“IJ”) Immigration Judge found sen- girl age the of fourteen and under subject to Ngarurih past that had been hard eight years prison to in with tenced Kenya, in she denied the persecution but strokes of the cane” for each labor and “six asylum Ngarurih’s request because in his vil- Ngarurih arrived count. Once Kenya in 1997 return to dem- two-month lage, to the trial court to obtain he wrote willing he to return to onstrated - Njoka’s file; Ngarurih’s the court granted country he native and that could be his Ngaru- him request and sent the records. as a public in matters —such crim- involved Njoka’s attorney challenge rih hired an by the reprisal inal Ken- —without conviction, vil- and he to other traveled Although the IJ denied yan government. lages investigate the case. the facts of asylum claims and with- Ngarurih’s Ngarurih’s ultimately efforts were success- removal, holding granted'voluntary she ful: reversed His brother’s conviction was thirty days to giving Ngarurih departure, trial. and' case for a new his remanded expense the United States at his own leave Ngarurih personally posted a bond to se- government action. and without further Njoka’s prison. release from Several cure appealed order the Ngarurih the IJ’s release, days Njoka’s re- Ngarurih after BIA, disposition of which affirmed the IJ’s August in turned to the United States claims. Ngarurih’s 1997. Ngarurih’s The BIA concluded that re- to ex-

Ngarurih’s student visa was set Kenya turn to constituted “fun- pire to return to wanting in 2000. Not change damental in circumstances [that] application filed an initial Kenyа, that he feared per- diminishe[d] claim” removal asylum withholding and Likewise, Kenya.4 the BIA persecution by gov- the Moi secution past based on Arap immigration 3. noted Moi March. service 4. The BIA that Daniel had On the Kibaki, Immigration former and Nat- functions of the replaced who was been Mwai uralization were transferred Service elected President in December Immigration Citizenship U.S. Bureau of fact, however, rely did not BIA on this Department Services within the of Homeland concluding Ngarurih could not demon- sake, clarity’s Security. and because For persecution. a well-founded fear of strate proceedings March these occurred before 2003, we rather than its will refer the INS entity. successor Ngarurih’s concluded that return to applicant can establish that he or she diminished his claim that he was entitled has suffered persecution in past in the upon severity applicant’s based country of nationality ... on past persecution. race, the BIA account of religion, affirmed nationality, mem- bership the IJ’s in a Ngarurih’s asylum particular resolution social group, or political claim granted Ngarurih permission opinion, and is unable or unwilling to, to return depart the or avail voluntarily. United States Ac- himself or herself of order, protection of, cording to the BIA’s owing to thirty such days persecution.” from the entry date of C.F.R. (or 208.13(b)(1). extension An granted by applicant who demon- director) district strates that he depart subject was the past United persecution presumed States. The order provided further to have a well- founded fear of depart persecution. failure to within that pre- Id. This sumption 30-day period may would be being result rebutted if immigra- removed, fined, judge ineligible finds preponderance from certain (1) forms of evidence that years. relief for a there of ten has been a funda- Shortly change mental before that circumstances such that period expired, Ngarurih applicant no petition longer filed this has a well-founded (2) fear of persecution for review. applicant could avoid future by relocat- ing part to another of his country. native II. 208.13(b)(1)®. 8 C.F.R. The Immigration and Nationality Act regard past Without persecution, General,

authorizes Attorney in his an applicant has a well-founded fear of discretion, to asylum any confer refu- (1) persecution if he “has a fear of persecu 1158(b)(1). § gee. 8 “refugee” U.S.C. A country tion nationality on ac is person “who is unwilling unable or race, count of religion, nationality, mem to, to return and is unwilling unable or bership in a particular social group, or avail of, himself or herself of protection (2) political opinion,” “there is a reasonable [the home] because of possibility 'of suffering such persecution if or a well-founded fear of persecution on he or she were to return country,” to that race, account of religion, nationality, mem- (3) and he is unwilling “unable or to return bership in particular a group, social to, or avail protec himself or herself of the political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. of, that country because of such fear.” 1101(a)(42)(A). § An applicant asylum for 208.13(b)(2)®. § 8 C.F.R. The well-found may qualify refugee as a еither because he ed fear of persecution standard involves past persecution suffered or because he objective subjective “An components'. has a well-founded fear of persecu- future applicant may satisfy subjective ele 208.13(b). § tion. 8 C.F.R. Under either candid, credible, presenting ment standard, applicant bears the burden sincere testimony demonstrating genuine a of demonstrating eligibility asylum. 8 INS, fear of persecution.” Chen v. 195 208.13(a); § INS, C.F.R. Gonahasa v. 181 198, (4th Cir.1999) (internal F.3d 201-02 (4th 538, Cir.1999). F.3d 541 omitted). quotations objective ele An applicant “shall be found to be a requires ment a showing specific, con refugee on the past persecution basis of if crete facts that would lead a reasonable 188 which persecution. grounds upon discloses quately to fear in like circumstances

person BIA, 979 for relief. Ngarurih’s requests v. it an-Cornelio denied Huam Cir.1992). 95, (4th Chenery Corp., v. 318 U.S. 999 See SEC F.2d (1943).5 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 S.Ct. uphold the BIA’s deter must We ineligible is mination A.- “mani that determination is asylum unless Nga- and an abuse BIA first contrary the law concluded festly 1252(b)(4)(D). § Kenya in 1997 discretion.” 8 U.S.C. return to rurih’s whole, ask we Considering the record as claim a well-found undermined his to have ruling “supported BIA’s Citing persecution. whether fear of 8 C.F.R. ed reasonable, substantial, probative evi 208.13(b)(1)(i), the BIA reasoned dence,” will the BIA’s deci and we reverse es although Ngarurih’s past persecution Ngarurih presented if evidence sion presumption persecu of fear of tablished compelling that no reasonable that was “so tion, two-month Ngarurih’s the evidence fail requisite could to find the factfinder stay Kenya without incident constituted INS v. Elias-Zaca persecution.” fear of changed of a circumstance that evidence rias, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 502 U.S. general presumption. More rebutted (1992). 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 also Rusu See analogized return ly, Ngarurih’s the BIA INS, F.3d n. 14 Cir. Kenya case in which Gonahasa, 541; 2002); Huam 181 F.3d leaves the United States without applicant an-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999. obtaining parole; such first advance case, applicant would be deemed Where, here, BIA did asylum application. have abandoned opinion offered its own adopt the IJ’s but 208.8(a).6 See 8 C.F.R. relief, denying we review reasons for testified returned to ruling. rather than the IJ’s that he BIA’s order Rusu, 6; in 1997 when that his 296 F.3d at n. Huaman-C he learned See ornelio, to a Contrary younger brother had sentenced at 999. been assertion, rape. Suspect- ade- imprisonment the BIA’s order term of ruled, Mengistu Ngarurih as a in asserts that the BIA 5. The Seventh Circuit’s decision 6. Cir.2004), law, Ashcroft, Ngaru- simple F.3d 1044 matter of that the fact of compel a not different conclusion. In does Kenya ineligible to rih's return rendered him case, single justification the BIA that offered asylum. suggests BIA's no such order for denying reopen, for alien’s motion ruling. contrary, To the the order indicates appeals Chenery in de- the court of invoked circum that the BIA considered facts and clining grounds to consider alternative Ngarurih's Kenya stances of return to in denying the motion. Id. at 1046-47. The analysis of a routine under 8 C.F.R. context because court then vacated the BIA’s order 208.13(b)(l)(i). Thus, argument Ngarurih’s ground the sole for its decision was insuffi- High on the United Commis based Nations Id. at 1047-48. cient to sustain decision. Refugees ap sioner for Handbook —which clear from the in this сase that It is reject per se pears to rule that return BIA, considering the circumstances surround- country refugee results loss of sta- home in 1997, Ngarurih’s. Kenya de- ing in return ' event, misplaced. any Supreme tus—is Ngarurih findings nied relief based on noted that is not Court has the Handbook fear of future did not establish well-founded binding the BIA INS v. or this court. necessary persecution or the conditions Cardoza-Fonseca, n. 480 U.S. severity past perse- on the relief based (1987). 107 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed.2d 434 findings, sub- cution. We address these analysis Men- ject to the harmless-error gistu recognizes. at itself See id. 1047. falsely ing his brother been ac- had a well-founded fear of persecu- future cused, Ngarurih left the United to tion. question States for the BIA was not appeal. assist in the Ngarurih criminal When he whether had a fear well-founded Ngarurih arrived back in his home village, persecution when he returned to Kenya court, a letter to the trial bearing pertinent wrote 1997. The question is wheth- signature, requesting Ngarurih his own er qualified brother’s a “refugee” —a retaining attorney file. After to prose- person unable or unwilling return to his aрpeal, Ngarurih cute the traveled to other home due to a well-founded fear of villages to investigate the facts of his applied time he —at asylum. brother’s case. Once his brother’s convic- There is perhaps no evidence reversed, Ngarurih posted tion was the more question relevant than what (or bond that secured his happened brother’s release did happen) prison. actually he Kenya returned to when Ngarurih’s presence Kenya was family,

known other tea farmers argue While one could that the sought persuade who him to run for factfinder could have reached different Parliament, government In- officials. conclusion, it is not our “reweigh task to deed, Ngarurih stated that ap- he was the evidence and determine which of the proached by said, a police officer who “So competing views compelling. is more It is you’re ... you’re back we know back instead to ensure that substantial evidence worry, Thus, don’t watching you.” we’ll be supports the Gonaha judgment.” BIA’s despite his to main- ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍self-described efforts sa, 542. Considering the rec profile, Ngarurih tain a low undertook ac- whole, ord aas we conclude that substan placed tivities that him in direct contact tial supports evidence the BIA’s denial of officials, government with seeking the pro- Ngarurih’s application for asylum.7 Kenya’s tection of laws. Yet there is no say we cannot ruling BIA’s evidence that suffered mis- manifestly contrary to or an law abuse of treatment at Kenyan hands of the 1252(b)(4)(D). discretion. See 8 U.S.C.' government during his two-month B. facts,

These found the IJ and estab- The BIA further Ngaru ruled that by Ngarurih’s lished testimony, sup- own rih’s return Kenya 1997 undermined port the BIA’s conclusion that his claim to so-called asy “humanitarian return to in 1997 constituted a “fun- lum.” Even in the absence of a well- change damental in circumstances” suffi- persecution, founded fear of immigra (raised cient to presumption rebut the judge tion grant asylum has discretion to the fact of past persecution) that Ngarurih applicant to an who demonstrates “compel- Ngarurih sought withholding 7. fy of removal as the lesser standard means that he сannot asylum. Withholding an alternative to withholding of re- demonstrate entitlement to re of Huaman-Cornelio, only moval is available to an alien who can moval. See 979 F.2d at probability” persecu- demonstrate a "clear challenge does not the denial race, religion, tion on account of his Against of relief national- under the Convention Tor ity, ture, membership group, political in a social or we do not consider that issue here. Rusu, INS, opinion. 318, (4th 296 F.3d at 324 n. 13. Be- See v. 260 F.3d 326 Yousefi Cir.2001) cause this demanding standard is more (stating than that failure to raise a chal applicable the "well-founded lenge opening fear” standard in an brief results in abandon asylum requests, Ngarurih’s challenge). failure to satis- ment of that 190 “willing” Kenya’s courts—was a unwilling or unable in being reasons

ling claim arising present out of the return that undermined his the return to “unwilling” Kenya that to return based persecution” or to be severity of the past have no possibility past persecution. that he on his While we is a reasonable “there harm upon help serious felt need to may suffеr other doubt that she country.” 8 legal processes, C.F.R. that fact through to that brother removal 208.13(b)(1)(iii). v. question also Krastev the See not the whether does answer (10th Cir.2002) INS, 1268, 1271. objectively compel- 292 F.3d so were circumstances this (describing asylum conferred under Ngarurih’s return to ling as to render asylum”). as “humanitarian regulation reviewing After Kenya “unwilling.” record, considering particu- entire exception this We have construed return, Ngarurih’s facts we cannot lar asy humanitarian narrowly, stating that “ mani- say that the BIA’s conclusion was ‘the case rare lum is available or an of dis- festly contrary to law abuse is so severe that it past persecution where 1252(b)(4)(D). cretion. 8See U.S.C. return alien inhumane to would be any risk of future in the absence of even finding BIA if the erred Even ” Gonahasa, 181 F.3d at 543 persecution.’ Kenya, to return Ngarurih willing INS, 689, v. 131 F.3d 690 (quoting Vaduva Ngarurih’s mistreat error harmless.8 was Cir.1997)). INS, (7th Toptchev Accord v. it not com ment —horrible.as was—does 714, Cir.2002); Kras F.3d 721-22 295 severity persecution pare kinds short, tev, at “[eligibili 292 F.3d 1280. In asylum regula for which humanitarian alone is ty severity on based designed. The seminal casе was atrocious reserved the most abuse.” a native of humanitarian involved Gonahasa, Bucur 181 F.3d at 543. Accord that both he and China who testified (7th Cir.1997) INS, 399, 109 family persecution for several suffered (describing asylum” “humanitarian years during the Cultural Revolution. regulation “designed for the case of the Chen, 20 I. & Matter N. Dec. Jews, the victims Chinese German (BIA 1989). only eight Chen When Revolution,’ survivors of the ‘Cultural minister, father, old, years Christian genocide, and a few other such Cambodian Id. target became Red Guards. cases”). extreme house, put The Red ransacked his Guards dragged through him in him prison, re-

The BIA concluded fifty more than times over sev return made for the streets turn to in 1997—a During burning eral Id. a Bible purpose, assisting in his brother’s months. Watts, (Fed.Cir. immigra re 354 F.3d analysis;applies 8. Harmless-error Gonahasa, 2004) (stating Chenery principle 181 F.3d at 544 tion cases. See Bucur, 405-06). (citing the need to consider the at "does obviate 109 F.3d While error”); Nazaraghaie v. issue general rule is "an administrative order of harmless INS, (10th Cir.1996) (con upheld grounds upon cannot be unless the 102 F.3d alleged exercising cluding to con agency pow аcted that the BIA’s failure which its sider evidence was harmless error upon ers were those which its action can be certain sustained,” be no Chenery, S.Ct. since "the result in case would 318 U.S. 454, different”); Co. Work required alleged Coal v. reversal is not when the Sahara of Office 554, (7th "clearly bearing proce Comp. Programs, 946 F.2d ers’ error had no Cir.1991) (noting doc that “harmless-error dure used or the substance of decision reached,” injudicial admin trine is available review of Massachusetts Trs. Gas & Fuel of E. action; States, exception to the it is an 377 U.S. istrative Associates United 1236, (1964). Cheneryprinciple”). 84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 268 Accord pushed horrible, Chen’s father was into a was it is not of the scale warrant Chen, badly bonfire and burned. Id. ing grant Rusu, still asylum.” 296 F.3d at child, put was on house arrest for months; cried, six when he Red Guards We have reviewed the entire record in kicked him and him deprived and bit this case and conclude Ngarurih’s Chen, food. Matter 20 I. & N. Dec. at past persecution was no more severe than 20. Although ultimately Chen was allowed persecution by suffered Gonahasa and school, persecution attend did not Rusu, nearly and not as severe as the occasions, stop. On different Chen was persecution suffered Chen. Even if rocks, care, pelted with denied medical and Ngarurih were unwilling to return to his villages exiled to rural for “re-education.” country, home he past cannot establish though Id. Even regime changed persecution enough severe to warrant re- such that Chen could demonstrate a 208.13(b)(l)(iii). lief under Thus, we persecution, well-founded fear of the BIA cannot say that the BIA’s denial of human- granted asylum. Chen humanitarian Mat- itarian asylum in this case is manifestly Chen, ter 20 I. & N. Dec. 19-21. contrary to law or an ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍abuse of discretion. 1252(b)(4)(D).

At about the same time that See 8 U.S.C. jailed

was being politi- tortured for his C. opposition Kenya, cal David Daada Gon- ahasa suffering was similar mistreatment Having concluded that evidence Uganda. organizing op- After rallies in the record compel does not granting position ruling party, Gonahasa was asylum, we Ngarurih’s address alternative by military officers, seized intelligence request to restore opportunity to de beaten, “stripped, cut on by bayo- his arms part the United voluntarily. States Both nets, and confined in a small cell.” Gon- the IJ and the BIA granted Ngarurih vol ahasa, 181 F.3d at 540. He later learned untary departure. This relief was avail that government officers had “visited his able for thirty days after the BIA’s order home, wife, roughed up his and threatened filed, was and that long has since facts, to kill him.” Id. On these we con- expired. Relying upon our decision (in dicta) v, cluded that Gonahasa was not INS, Ramsay 14 F.3d 206 Cir. entitled to humanitarian because 1994), Ngarurih urges us to reinstate the past persecution “simply was not se- BIA’s award of departure by enough” vere to warrant such relief. Gon- restarting 30-day period granted by ahasa, 181 F.3d at 544. the BIA’s order.

We later denied humanitarian asylum request implicates the Illegal Rusu, Constantin a native Romanian Immigration who Immigrant Responsibili- persecuted by regime ty (“IIRIRA”), the Ceauseseu Act of 1996 an enactment organizing a transcendental meditation judicial well known for restricting review Rusu, group. 296 F.3d at 318. discretionary Rusu in immigration decisions alleged that “interrogated he was and as- See Reno v. American-Arаb matters.. on multiple Cmte., saulted occasions the Roma- Anti-Discrimination 525 U.S. (the Seeuritate)” police (1999) nian secret S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 940 occasion, that on one “they (noting tortured him “many provisions of IIRIRA by removing his teeth with pliers and a are at protecting aimed the Executive’s screwdriver.” indeed, Id. We concluded that “al- discretion courts— though fairly he suffered ... can be said to be the theme 192 Umanzor-Alvarado, offered ba which two IIRIRA, un it was Before

legislation”).9 voluntary reinstating for justifications au sic appeals of whether courts settled First, expressed the court voluntary departures. departure. thority to reinstate employ volun specific might that the INS that absent concern held courts Some relief, keep it aliens from tary departure award such orders authority to grant final orders Attorney appeals alone from prosecuting General left to Umanzor-Alvarado, for 896 period extend the deportation. See decide whether See, e.g., Nkacoang Kaczmarczyk, 933 Accord voluntary departure. F.2d at 16. (11th Cir.1996); 353, INS, 357 concern reflected v. 83 F.3d F.2d at 598. This 1576, INS, 23 F.3d 1580 immigration v. pre-IIRIRA that under Castaneda fact INS, (10th Cir.1994); 990 v. jurisdiction Alsheweikh law, appeals lost a court Cir.1993). (8th Ninth 1025, 1027 left the F.2d once the alien for review petition hand, 1105a(c) that rein Circuit, held § on the other See 8 U.S.C. United States. au voluntary departure was (1994). Second, statement the court noted of a final order of affirmance upon tomatic ... court deprives [the in the law “nothing INS, Contreras-Aragon v. deportation. to order the legal power appeals] Cir.1988) (en (9th 1088, 1096-97 F.2d 852 remedy.” Umanzor-Alvara appropriate banc). nothing courts held Other do, F.2d at 16. from rein appeals a court of prevented both of IIRIRA The enactment undercut under certain voluntary departure, stating reinstatement of justifications for of these circumstances, in course of limited most funda voluntary departure. Perhaps deportation. final order of considering a repealed IIRIRA former mentally, INS, 588, 933 F.2d

Kaczmarczyk v. judicial a new replaced it with 1105a (7th Cir.1991); v. Umanzor-Alvarado provision, U.S.C. review (1st Cir.1990). INS, 15-16 juris appellate to cut off purport does not that a court of Ramsay We held country. leaves the once an alien diction voluntary depar- appeals could reinstate 919, 922 Ashcroft, 251 F.3d Moore v. See (1) “the circumstances: ture two where Cir.2001) (11th (“Noticeably absent from wielding its discretion to withhold INS any similar lan rules is permanent applicants to deter voluntary departure jurisdiction review guage removing federal judicial of BIA deci- seeking review departs or is re in the event an alien . (2) does not sions,” where “the [INS] moved.”). may an alien continue the district director present it will suggest final order of of a prosecute refusing any other reason with the United departs even after he removal (alteration 14 F.3d reinstatement.” States, longer prospect no and there is concluded that a court original). Where manipulate vol government could that the reinstated, should be deprive untary departure orders voluntary grant- departure “the Zazueta-Car judicial review. See alien of to run anew from begins the BIA ed (9th 1166, 1171 Ashcroft, 322 F.3d rillo v. issues from the court thе date the mandate Cir.2003) desire (stating “Congress’s voluntary depar- reinstating the appeals assent expedite removal n. Id. at 213 8. ture.” conflict with the alien’s abili now does not review”); Tapia petition conclusion, ty pursue we relied reaching (10th INS, v. 237 F.3d analysis Garcia the First Circuit’s part upon n Orquera Ashcroft, apply. See placed manent rules Ngarurih was in removal 9. Because Cir.2003). 418 n. 1 per- 357 F.3d proceedings April IIRIRA's after

193 Cir.2001) (stating “deportation no initially prescribed for voluntary depar review”). judicial longer forecloses § ture. 8 C.F.R. 240.26: As the Ninth Circuit recognized, has “it is executive changed IIRIRA also the rules judicial rather than officers who decide judicial concerning voluntary review of de when'an alien depart,” must and “[n]either parture decisions. 1229c specifi Section the statute nor regulations the give courts cally precludes review of denial of a any designated role in process this of set request voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. ting the deadline for departure.” Zazue 1229c(f). Likewise, § general judicial tar-Carrillo, 322 F.3d at 1172. provision prеcludes review review of or granting voluntary departure: ders The BIA gave Ngarurih thirty days from the date of its order—until Notwithstanding any provision February other 7, law, depart 2003—to jurisdiction no court voluntarily. shall have That deadline long review— has passed, since Ngarurih has even (i) exhausted the maxi any judgment regarding granting period mum permitted by the statute. See 1182(i), 1182(h), relief under section 1229c(b)(2) § 8 U.S.C. (providing that 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title.... period for voluntary departure cannot ex 1252(a)(2)(B) added). § (emphasis Id. sixty ceed days). “For specify us to longer it is no that “nothing true effect a period different starting more than ... deprives the law court of appeals] [the year later would contravene Congress’s legal power” of the voluntary reinstate scheme and invade the executive branch’s Umanzor-Alvarado, departure. 896 F.2d authority specify a deadline for volun intervening 16. These changes tary departure.” Zazueta-Carrillo, 322 Ramsay inapplicable this, statute make F.3d at 1172-73. Because the statute any, permanent rules case.10 plainly precludes our review BIA’s This conclusion is consistent with Con- granting voluntary departure, we gress’ expressed preserve intention to appeals hold that a court of jurisdic lacks exercise of executive in granting discretion request to entertain a to reinstate voluntary departures. law, Under current voluntary departure.11 permit decision whether to an alien to depart Relying upon the United recent voluntarily States decisions Circuits, entirely committed Sixth and Ninth the discretion of the further 1229c(b)(l). Attorney General. 8 contends that we should gen U.S.C. exercise our By regulation, Attorney equitable eral power, pursuant General has to 28 permitted director, 2349, the INS district the U.S.C. the period specified discretion, exercise of to extend voluntary departure. These decisions course, Ramsay (8th Cir.2003). 10. applicable Of Unfortunately, remains 710 neither governed by permanent cases not IIRIRA's the First Circuit nor the Sixth Circuit has rules, i.e., proceedings cases in which removal justification offered reasoned for continu- 1, April were commenced before ing practice permanent rules cases. upon pre-IIRIRA The First Circuit relies au- 11. We are aware that the First Circuit contin proposition thorities for the that reinstate- voluntary departures ues to reinstate even in INS, permissible. ment is See Yatskin v. 255 permanent cases decided under IIRIRA’s 5, (1st Cir.2001) (a permanent F.3d 11 rules See, e.g., Velasquez Ashcroft, rules. v. INS, citing case 909 F.2d Alvarez-Flores (1st Cir.2003); Ashcroft, Khalil v. (1st Cir.1990), decision). pre-IIRIRA We (1st Cir.2003). Citing 337 F.3d Velas approach. decline to follow this quez, the Sixth Circuit reinstated departure Ashcroft, in Loulou v. 354 F.3d country stay may a his be removed to his home even may obtain hold that an alien if he meets the is decided. Even in that period before voluntary departure case, stay possibility a of removal. See there a that the alien requirements for is Ashcroft, 352 327 country F.3d will face in the home Nwakanma v. curiam); (6th Cir.2003) Himri v. (per rendering El to return should him unable he 1261, 1262 remedy Cir. on Ashcroft, prevail appeal. this 2003). concluded, however, removal, that 8 Having stay is concern the which we 1252(a)(2)(B) precludes judicial § the option grant U.S.C. retain to cаse granting volun statutory review BIA’s order the of the where satisfies re- alien cannot evade tary just we this statu is as departure, quirements. This relief available Indeed, to tory equity. voluntary resort sought depar- directive to the alien who - over BIA’s jurisdiction since lack it alien who we ture as is to the did not. voluntary departure, there granting essence, contends the dissent that an stay. to is us nothing before alien with a meritorious claim enough say have It is not we permitted should be to take benefits of jurisdiction over the order of removal. voluntary departure bearing any without prerogative That us gives fact (arguing of the at 198-99 post costs. See remedies to apply equitable that order. with possi- that “we should not force aliens a grant stay free to of remov- we are bly asylum appeals to meritorious choose statutory al alien satisfies the when the benefits preserving between certain made requirements for such relief. See 8 U.S.C. safety”). and their available under the INA 1252(f)(2). § not grant are free to We This contention cannot be reconciled with respect a additional relief with volun- voluntary departure scheme described tary order that even the departure dissent statutory in the statute. This scheme re- agrees properly before us. is intention, Congress’ veals offer an alien from explain specific exemption than how court can the or- Rather benefit — it, dinary subsequent an order not bars on relief—in re- operate properly before no appellate departure is turn for cost to the argues quick the dissent review asylum applicants government. important quick- who “meaningless” So departure bargain aspect “are to return to countries where Con- forced gress provided penalties they imprisoned killed or and thus for certain to at- may be overstays voluntary to the if tach when an alien unable to return United States we they asy departure period. are See determine entitled U.S.C. 1229e(d). Thus, considering at 197-98. See Nwakan an alien lum.” Post also ma, 326; Zazueta-Carrillo, decide departure 352 F.3d at must whether (Bеrzon, J., exemption ordinary concurring). from the bars on 322 F.3d at objection subsequent cost This is much an to review relief is worth the of re- not so concerning voluntary depar turning the home within the procedures objection specified. Having made procedures ture it is an elec- tion, however, takes all the immigration review of cases the alien bene- appellate removal, and all generally. an fits the burdens statute Absent ordinary together.12 immigration appeal alien in an 240.25(c). suggestion, requests Contrary C.F.R. if to the dissent's volun- Even he it, is, end, may tary beginning reject departure vol- relief obtains the alien later relief; request by overstaying period specified untary. it it for de- The alien must parture. rejects is a matter of If he not offered as course. See view, the dissent’s an alien Under could lum. That ruling supported by substan- request voluntary departure, overstay the tial applicable law, evidence and and it specified period deprive govern- must be affirmed. The BIA granted also quick departure, ment of a wait out the Ngarurih thirty days within which to de- appellate process, review and then demand part the United States voluntarily. Be- voluntary the full benefits of departure. Congress cause officers, left it to executive This scenario is not at all Congress court, what not this long determine how an intended, and it is not for us to recalibrate alien should have to voluntary exercise Congress the scheme that created in the departure, we cannot reinstate voluntary urges. manner that the dissent now The departure or otherwise alter the BIA’s voluntary departure properly order is not this respect. For all of these us, Congress before reasons, has insulated that the petition for hereby review is order from appellate review. are not We DENIED. liberty to apply equitable remedies to GREGORY, order, Judge, that Circuit certainly way concurring not in a that part and dissenting part: statutory contravenes the scheme. Cf. Pangilinan, INS v. 486 U.S. follow, For the reasons that I concur in (1988) 2210, 100 (stating S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 882 majority’s conclusion that substantial equity “courts of can no more disre- evidence supports the Board of Immigra gard statutory ... requirements pro- and (“BIA”) Appeal’s tion denial Ngarurih’s law”).13 than visions can courts of application asylum and Illegal that the Immigration Reform Immigrant and Re

III. (“IIRIRA”) sponsibility Act of 1996 divests Congress reposed authority jurisdiction has broad in us of to reinstate Ngarurih’s Attorney adjudicate General to voluntary However, individ- departure period. cases, immigration ual Congress has while I Ngagurih believe that is not enti expressly protected this stay executive discre- tled to a voluntary departure, I restricting appellate jurisdiction respectfully majority’s dissent from the far constructing standards of reaching, my deferential and in unnecessary, view review. BIA Ngarurih’s ruled that conclusion that IIRIRA precludes us asylum claim to was not powerful enough from exercising general our equitable pow to warrant the extraordinary asy- stay relief of voluntary ers to or toll a departure manner, this subject then he ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍is prohibited to removal order of [the removal] is as a mat- ordinary from the United States in the course. 1252(f)(2). ter of lаw.” 8 U.S.C. We have The fact that his choice carries real conse- already concluded that is not enti- quences monetary penalty subjection asylum, —a prohibit- tled to so his removal is not ordinary subsequent bars on relief— Moreover, ed a as matter of law. means that the alien has a real choice to request stay voluntary departure for a was make, is, says, not that he as the dissent 30-day period voluntary made after the "forced” to leave. Post at 198-99. departure already expired; neither Nwak- purports anma nor El Himri to authorize a assuming 13. Even that Nwakanma and El Nwakanma, stay in a such circumstance. See law, correctly Himri state the would (noting 352 F.3d at 327 that the alien moved stay voluntary not be entitled depar- stay day for a on the last before his satisfy require- ture because he cannot Himri, departure period expired); stay El ments for a ute, of removal. Under the stat- (expressly reserving F.3d at 1263 appeals may enjoin a court n. a removal question appeals stay if "the alien shows clear and convinc- whether a court of can ing entry evidence that the departure period already expired). or execution of that had Sixth, Circuits, I and Ninth I. period. As precludes IIRIRA do not believe application BIA denied Ngarurih’s voluntary departure pe staying us from asylum return to political because “his our resolution of pending riod Kenya for 2 months in ... consti of such the merits appeal provided in circum change a fundamental tute[d] stay order. justify a of the removal to have stances and diminishe his claim [d] 325, 326 Ashcroft, 352 F.3d Nwakanma persecution.” fear of future a well-founded Xholding that Cir.2003)(per curiam I majority, 319. Like the believe J.A. appellate does not federal the IIRIRA bar evidence conclu supports substantial staying courts During his month return to sion. two concluding “[a] and thus Kenya, Ngarurih publicly involved voluntary departure pending appellate of younger appeal, his brother’s criminal sub ... on the be available review should bearing signa court his mitting documents stay a showing authorizes same ture, traveling Kenya to villages various rеview”); El Himri v. pending removal investigate to the facts of his brother’s Ashcroft, 344 F.3d Cir. posting his De case brother’s bond. 2003)(“[W]e [post-IIRIRA] hold that spite being publicly in his active brother’s jurisdiction stay to equitable court retains Ngarurih, presence criminal whose appeal, ... voluntary departure period [and] of, government officials aware were obtaining stay that the standards attacks, harm, subjected any bodily to stays also to of volun apply shall removal during threats or other measures coercive ability to tary Without the departure.”). stay Indeed, Kenya.* two month his quo by staying maintain the status vol government attempt officials not even did period, untary departure our review impede Ngarurih’s to efforts to assist with asylum appeals meaning will rendered be pris his brother’s and release already the alien have less because will Moreover, Ngarurih brought on. has not subjected to harm from which been any oc to our attention events that have supposed protect is to him or our decision subsequent trip that curred to his 1997 If that harm comes in the form of her. cause him to would have well-founded death, inability de imprisonment or the to if to return to fear he were part country, their native our determina Kenya. asylum that an alien is to tion entitled un BIA meaningless Ngarurih’s applica- because the alien will be also denied to the ba- asylum” able to return the United States “humanitarian willing Kenya to our decision. that “his un- give thus effect sis return to ‘compelling in which aliens avail themselves his claim dermine[d] instances to have harm being and no to unwilling reasons or unable therefrom, warranted, factually be such that results we will return’ [was] to conclude that the alien does not in the forced even absence of a well-founded persecution. (quoting have a well-founded fear of fear.” Id. C.F.R. added)). appellate 208.12(b)(l)(iii)(emphasis § be ren our review will Unlike asylum ap majority, I BIA incor- formality dered a mere believe that the process. rectly “willing- plication determined that * Ngarurih's family stay Kenya. did not I also note two month experience any persecution during form ly” Kenya. to voluntary. departure returned re- ... nor any shall Kenya being turned to after informed that court order a of an alien’s removal . younger pending brother —-whom he reared as a consideration of any claims with prior entering son to the United States— respect departure.” 8 U.S.C. 1229c(f). falsely raping accused of been their The IIRIRA provides further and forced to guilty plea. niece enter a that “[n]otwithstanding any other provi- Having Kenyan law, being prison tortured in a sion of jurisdiction no court shall have himself, Ngarurih understandably felt review ... judgment regarding the brother, compelled to granting assist whom he of relief under section ... 1229c son, appealing viewed more like a [voluntary what departure] of this title.” Id. 1252(a)(2)(B)®. unjust he believed to be an even conviction provi- Based on these doing sions, if him required place so his life in I concur in the majority’s conclusion danger by returning Kenya. Under that the IIRIRA precludes us from rein- circumstances, such I do not stating believe that Ngarurih’s voluntary departure pe- Ngarurih’s trip can be riod. provisions considr These make clеar Con- ered one that “willingly.” gress’s was taken intent to divest federal appellate Nonetheless, I majority, jurisdiction like the am un- courts of to determine whether Nga- able find the BIA’s denial aliens are discretionary entitled re- application asy- rurih’s for “humanitarian voluntary lief of departure. Given that we lum” manifestly contrary longer jurisdiction daw or no have to review the an given abuse-of discretion that grant “humani- BIA’s voluntary or denial of depar- tarian asylum” ture, has been limited to ex- I do not believe we have the authori- cases, treme such as that ty “of the German to voluntary reinstate the depar- BIA’s Jews, the victims of the Chinese’Cultural ture determinations. Revolution,’ [and] survivors of the Cambo- not, however, I do that believe these INS, Bucur v. genocide.” dian 109 F.3d provisions preclude exercising us from our (7th Cir.1997)(internal

399, 405 citation equitable jurisdiction stay voluntary to omitted). departure period pending our resolution of asylum appeal. provision The relied II. upon by majority to reach this conclu- majority concludes that the IIRIRA sion—8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)® оnly — precludes us from both reinstating and precludes reviewing us from the merits of staying Ngarurih’s voluntary departure grant voluntary the BIA’s decision to de- period. agree While I that the IIRIRA parture. recently As the Sixth Circuit jurisdiction divests us of to Nga- reinstate granting stay voluntary held: “[I]n voluntary rurih’s departure period, I do departure, pass we do not on the sub- precludes believe that the IIRIRA us grant voluntary stance of the decision to from staying Ngarurih’s voluntary depar- departure; only stay we the immediate Rather, period. ture simply I believe that already granted effectiveness of the relief Ngarurih is not stay entitled to a of his discretion, by [the BIA] [its] allow the voluntary departure period because he is petitioner alien appellate receive re- satisfy requirements unable to for a Nwakanma, view.” 352 F.3d at 326. stay of removal. Consequently, by granting of volun- provides tary “evade,” IIRIRA departure “[n]o court we do not as the jurisdiction concludes, shall have over an majority statutory mandate 1252(a)(2)(B)® request [the] denial of a for an order of of 8 U.S.C. court —“nо “only stays of ... IIRIRA re prohibits review jurisdiction to shall have relief pending voluntary consideration of judgment regarding granting moval [voluntary depar claims, stays opposite, ... 1229c departure not the under section Rather, we equity. by periods resort granted ture]” — ensure, maintaining quo, the status by of removal pending consideration orders.” asylum appeals, (Ber Zazueta-Carrillo, our rendered in decisions at 1176 322 F.3d juris clearly we have appeals over which J., zon, concurring). The fact “[t]hat cer diction, meaningless. As are not rendered stays pertaining tain kinds noted, have the Ninth and Sixth Circuits prohibited orders but not departure are will effect be rendered appeals is, interpreting law others under the case that have fled meaningless if individuals that, IIRIRA, a strong indication ex their native lands based on well-founded statute, we retain cept as limited are to return persecution forced fears equitable power to issue our traditional they or may be killed countries where Id.; quo.” stays preserving the status see imprisoned thus to return to unable v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimi Reno if determine United States we Comm., nation U.S. Nwakanma, they asylum. are entitled (1999)(narrowly 142 L.Ed.2d 940 S.Ct. (“Asylum applicants with F.3d at 326 IIRIRA); 1252(g) of the construing section potentially establishing cases meritorious Ashcroft, 253 F.3d Andreiu 481-82 in their genuine their fear (9th Cir.2001)(e% )(narrowly constru banc returning home countries will face either IIRIRA). 1252(f) ing section possibly countries and life-threat those supported being In addition to not in the United ening persecution staying text, IIRIRA’s the result follows States, letting the out on their clock run majority’s from the conclusion counsels periods, suffering voluntary departure and majority’s conclu- against it. Under the attach.”); the penalties Zazueta-Car sion, voluntary departure, alien an denied Ashcroft, rillo v. stay the Cir.2003)(Berzon, J., meets standard for of concurring)(“Without but who removal, authority avail relief equitable stay equitable our the can obtain and to voluntary departure ability periods, country pursuing of in this while thus remain granted voluntary the de granted time alien is whereas an alien parture he or she would faced with be must leave benefit having preserve to leave forthwith to judicial seeking while review. voluntary risking departure, benefits of may argue price that this is the Some potentially of a meritori spite nonreturn voluntarily depart pay who return aliens voiding] ous ... [thus] case effect being for the benefit not barred from asylum appeal.”). obtaining Immigration relief and under (“INA”) a period Act Naturalization undermining majority’s con-

Further as are removed involun- years, ten aliens IIRIRA clusion is the fact This, however, policy decision tarily. authority stay limits our BIA orders so Congress. absent clear best left of claims to allow for the consideration I statutory language, which do find in voluntary Specif- pertaining departure. IIRIRA, we not force should aliens ically, provides the IIRIRA that “[n]o asylum appeals possibly with meritorious ... of an alien’s court shall certain preserving choose ben- between pending consideration removal under the INA and depar- efits made available respect claims with Moreover, 1229e(f). safety. reasoning such Consequently, their ture.” 8 U.S.C. recognize fails aliens with wеll- Danny Rader, MD; A. Miles, RN; Terri Doe, MD; founded will be Doe, R.N.; unable Jane fears John/Jane Doe, Pharmacist; advantage take benefits conferred John/Jane John/ Doe, Pharmacy Jane Technician; by voluntary departure they if killed or are Doe, Agency/Corporation, John Third imprisoned upon returning to their native Party Defendants. country. 02-2264,

Nos. 02-2303. United States Court of Appeals ,Fourth Circuit.

Filed June ORDER January On we entered our CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL order referring this case to the Supreme CENTER, INCORPORATED, Appeals Court of Virginia,- West and on Plaintiff-Appellee, March Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert, Pfizer, Inc., defen- case, dants in this moved that we withdraw amend our said order of certification to Paul Fire Marine St. & Insurance Supreme Court of Appeals of West Company, Intervenor/Plaintiff, Virginia. The reason for the said motion of PARKE-DAVIS, a DIVISION OF WAR Parke-Davis and Pfizer is that we had LAMBERT; Pfizer, Incorporat NER understood, on account of a statement ed, by merger, its successor Defen argument made oral by the attorney for dants-Appellants, Center, Charleston Area Medical that thе estate, beneficiaries, and its of the infant injured in this case while at Charleston Danny Rader, MD; Miles, RN; A. Terri Center, Area joint Medical all released Doe, MD; liability tortfeasors from R.N.; on account of the Doe, Jane

John/Jane death of the said infant. Doe, Pharmacist; John/Jane John/ Doe, Pharmacy Technician; Jane Disagreement has arisen between Doe, Agency/Corporation, John Third Center, Charleston Area Medical Parke- Party Defendants. Davis, Pfizer, as to whether or not Parke-Davis and Pfizer were released Center,

Charleston Area Medical Agreement Settlement and Release dated Incorporated, Plaintiff- July which has been exhibited Appellant, with the said ‍‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‍motion of Parke-Davis and Pfizer, and whether an order of the Circuit Court of County, Virginia, Kanawa West Paul Fire July entered St. & Marine upon petition Insurance ' guardian infant, Company, of the said Intervenor/Plaintiff, has so Pfizer, released either or Parke-Davis them, liability both of from all on account Parke-Davis, a division of Warner Lam of the death of the said infant while at

bert; Pfizer, Incorporated, its succes Charleston Area Medical Center on or by merger, Defendants-Appellees, March, about sor day the 17th

Case Details

Case Name: David Wachira Ngarurih v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 10, 2004

Citation: 371 F.3d 182

Docket Number: 03-1144

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.