Rabbat, et al v. Mukasey, No. 08-1330 (1st Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West s Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 08-1330 CHUKRI RIZKALLAH GERGES RABBAT, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Torruella, Baldock, * and Howard, Circuit Judges. Joan M. Altamore, on brief, for petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Attorney General, Civil Division, Alison Marie Igoe, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Ada E. Bosque, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief, for respondent. September 24, 2008 * Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. BALDOCK, Senior Circuit Judge. The Department of Homeland Security charged Petitioner Chukri Rizkallah Gerges Rabbat, a citizen of immigrant visa. Lebanon, with overstaying his non- See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Petitioner admitted the charge s factual allegations (contained in a Notice to Appear) withholding Nations §§ of filed removal, Convention 1158(b), and and Against 1231(b)(3); an application protection Torture 8 C.F.R. under (CAT). § for asylum, the See United 8 1208.16. U.S.C. In his application, Petitioner alleged a fear of persecution at the hands of Syrians based upon his Christian religion. Following a hearing at which Petitioner testified at length, the Immigration Judge (IJ) first found Petitioner s application for asylum untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). Subsection (a)(2)(B) provides that, absent changed or extraordinary circumstances, an alien is not eligible for asylum unless convincing the evidence alien that demonstrates by application has the clear been and filed within 1 year after the date of the alien s arrival in the United States. Based on blanket findings, the IJ alternatively concluded that Petitioner was not eligible for asylum because his testimony was not credible. 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii),(iii) (establishing -3- a See id. § framework for credibility determinations). The IJ explained that Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing he was a refugee within the meaning i.e., one having a based on, among other § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) establish was things, U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), fear of persecution religion. The entitled § applicant status). not 8 well-founded (requiring refugee Petitioner of to IJ See asylum for id. to further withholding concluded of removal because he did not meet his burden of establishing his life or freedom would be threatened on account of religion if removed to Lebanon. See id. § 1231(b)(3). Finally, the IJ concluded Petitioner had not proven more likely than not that he would required be for tortured protection § 1208.16(c)(2). upon under returning CAT. to Lebanon See 8 as C.F.R. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed with the IJ s decision in all respects and dismissed Petitioner s appeal. In doing so, the BIA explained that Petitioner s application for asylum was time-barred, and the IJ s adverse erroneous. At credibility determination the § not clearly See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). outset, we note our review Petitioner s asylum claim. U.S.C. was 1158 jurisdiction to plainly review states any lack of to Subsection (a)(3) of 8 [n]o court determination -4- jurisdiction of shall the have Attorney General under paragraph (2), relating to time limits for filing an application for asylum. See Gonzales, 504 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir. 2007). Guillaume v. Thus, we possess jurisdiction only to review the BIA s denial of relief based on withholding of removal and CAT. In Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 2007) we set forth the standard of review applicable to those claims: This court reviews findings of fact in immigration proceedings, including findings with respect to credibility, to determine whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Under that standard, an adverse credibility determination may stand if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. (internal Settenda quotations v. and Ashcroft, 377 citation omitted); F.3d 93 89, (1st see also Cir. 2004) (explaining the substantial evidence standard applies both to the asylum and withholding claims as well as to claims brought under CAT ). Applying this standard, we need not repeat Petitioner s story here. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties briefs, and conclude the BIA reached the correct result under the applicable law. opined that when a lower court We have repeatedly accurately takes the measure of a case and articulates a cogent rationale, it serves no useful purpose for a reviewing court to write at length. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Zaldivar, 413 F.3d 119, -5- 120 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Seaco Ins. Co. v. Davis-Irish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing cases)). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA s decision, we deny the Petition for Review for substantially the reasons set forth in that decision. See Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2008) ( Where the BIA does not [expressly] adopt the IJ s findings, we review the BIA s decision rather than the IJ s. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
