Harpal Singh Cheema Rajwinder Kaur v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

383 F.3d 848 Harpal Singh CHEEMA; Rajwinder Kaur, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-71311. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 9, 2003. Filed June 24, 2004. Amended August 6, 2004. Second Amendment September 8, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioners. Ethan B. Kanter, Department of Justice, Office of Immigration and Litigation, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. Ravinder S. Bhalla, Krovatin & Associates, LLC; Newark, NJ, for amicus curiae the Sikh Coalition. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. Aos-agj-aso, Alo-ngs-chx. Before NOONAN, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION NOONAN, Circuit Judge. ORDER 1 The opinion filed on June 24, 2004, and amended on August 6, 2004 is amended as follows: 2 At slip. op. page 10535, delete the paragraph that begins with "As the Board did not complete ...", and replace with "Because the Board erred in determining whether Cheema was a "danger to the security of the United States," we remand to the Board to make that determination using the correct…

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed on June 24, 2004, and amended on August 6, -2004 is amended as follows:

At slip. op. page 10535, delete the paragraph that begins with “As the Board did not complete ... ”, and replace with “Because the Board erred in determining whether Cheema was a “danger to the security of the United States,” we remand to the Board to make that determination using the correct inquiry. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).”

At slip. op. page 10535, in the paragraph that begins with “2. Asylum ... ”, delete the following sentence: “As the Board did not reach the exercise of its discretion, we remand so that it may do so.”

Judge Rawlinson takes no position on the amendments.

OPINION

Harpal Singh Cheema (Cheema) and his wife Rajwinder Kaur (Kaur) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying them asylum and the withholding of deportation and holding them eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) but granting them only deferral of removal. We hold that the Board’s denial of…

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent.

Our review of asylum rulings made by the BIA has been curtailed in recent years. We may now reverse BIA’s factual findings made in the context of ruling on an asylum application only if a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003). We must also defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration law. See Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 315 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.2003).

Here is what the evidence in this case showed:

It is not difficult to connect the dots from Cheema and his wife to Panjwar to Bittu and back again. The BIA’s finding that Cheema materially supported terrorist activity is bolstered by substantial evidence, including Cheema’s own testimony.

A finding that Cheema provided material support to major international terrorists in turn substantiates the BIA’s finding that Cheema and his wife threaten the security of this country. Car bombings, assassinations of government officials, massacres-world wars have begun with less impetus. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 494 F.Supp. 1190, 1219 (E.D.Pa.1980) (“On June 28, 1914, the assassination in…