Case: 17-13105 Date Filed: 08/07/2020 Page: 1 of 7 RESTRICTED [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-13105 ________________________ Agency No. A089-427-907 NIDAL KHALID NASRALLAH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _______________________ (August 7, 2020) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Case: 17-13105 Date Filed: 08/07/2020 Page: 2 of 7 RESTRICTED Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge; TJOFLAT and GILMAN,* Circuit Judges. GILMAN, Circuit Judge: On February 14, 2019, we denied a petition for review from Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a native and citizen of Lebanon. Nasrallah v. United States Attorney General, 762 F. App’x 638 (11th Cir. 2019), rev’d sub nom. Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020). Nasrallah, whom the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined had committed a “crime involving moral turpitude,” sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). His petition raised numerous arguments, including that (1) the immigration judge (IJ) acted with prejudicial bias, (2) the BIA erred in determining that Nasrallah’s conviction constituted a “crime involving moral turpitude,” (3) the BIA erred in concluding that Nasrallah committed a “particularly serious crime,” and (4) the BIA erred in overturning the IJ’s determination that Nasrallah was eligible under the CAT for a deferral of removal. After we denied in part and dismissed in part Nasrallah’s petition, the Supreme Court took up only the last of these issues. In addressing Nasrallah’s CAT claim, we relied on Cole v. United States Attorney General, 712 F.3d 517 (11th Cir. 2013), which held that 8 U.S.C. * Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 17-13105 Date Filed: 08/07/2020 Page: 3 of 7 RESTRICTED §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude judicial review of factual challenges to a CAT order in cases where a noncitizen has committed a crime specified in § 1252(a)(2)(C). Because of a circuit split regarding this issue, the Supreme Court granted Nasrallah’s petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of Nasrallah. Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1694. Most Courts of Appeals had agreed with the holding in Cole, but the Seventh and Ninth Circuits held to the contrary. Id. at 1689. The Supreme Court determined that the minority’s interpretation was correct because “[a] CAT order is distinct from a final order of removal and does not affect the validity of a final order of removal,” and because §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) preclude review of factual challenges only to final orders. Id. at 1694. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, we now need to consider Nasrallah’s factual challenge to the CAT order. The remaining issue before us is therefore whether substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Nasrallah would not likely be singled out for torture if he is removed to Lebanon. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the BIA’s factual determination is adequately ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals