A.A. v. Attorney General United States


PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-1176 _____________ A.A., Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Number: A208-056-809 Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ______________ Argued: October 15, 2019 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 2, 2020) Anwen S. Hughes [ARGUED] Human Rights First 75 Broad Street Floor 31 New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Petitioner Joseph H. Hunt Ethan B. Kanter Paul F. Stone [ARGUED] Office of Immigration Litigation, Appellate Section United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent _____________ OPINION OF THE COURT _____________ CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. A.A. is a Syrian citizen and national who fled involuntary military service in a government-controlled militia called Jaysh al-Sha’bi (the “Militia”) and sought refuge in the United States. Upon arriving at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, A.A. gave himself up to United States Customs and Border Protection and applied for asylum, 2 withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted A.A.’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT because the IJ found that A.A. was likely to be tortured if he returned to Syria. But the IJ denied A.A.’s applications for asylum and for withholding of removal. The IJ determined that the Militia is a “Tier III,” or “undesignated,” terrorist organization under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) (the “Tier III provision”) because it is “a group of two or more individuals . . . which engages in [terrorist activity]” as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Any alien who provides “material support” to a Tier III organization is statutorily barred from receiving asylum and withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). The IJ concluded that A.A. provided material support to the Militia because, during the course of his service, A.A. trained to use an assault weapon, carried out guard duty, and performed errands for his superiors. Although A.A. secured CAT protection, he pursued his applications for asylum and withholding of removal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). A.A. argued before the BIA that the Militia is beyond the scope of the Tier III provision because it is a state actor controlled by a foreign government. The BIA disagreed and dismissed A.A.’s appeal. A.A. makes the same argument in his petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. I. A.A. was conscripted into the Syrian military in 2011. He initially refused to report for duty because he had heard that 3 the Syrian military was engaging in human rights violations while prosecuting the Syrian Civil War. A.A. was eventually captured by Syrian military police and forced into service. A.A. testified that the military conscription office sent him for various medical tests and examinations over the course of approximately one year. The examining doctors concluded that ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals