Gasper Peravic v. Attorney General of the United States

*Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2228
GASPER PERAVIC,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A78-198-998)
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 28, 2006
Before: MCKEE and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK,* District Judge.
(Filed: July 19, 2006)
______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
POLLAK, District Judge.
Gasper Peravic petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge's (“IJ”) denial of his

-- 1 of 11 --

2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the conduct of the IJ violated the petitioner’s due
process right to a fair hearing, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the order of
the BIA, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.
I. Background
As we write for parties who are versed in the facts, we provide only a summary
background. Peravic is a twenty-nine-year-old native and citizen of Serbia and
Montenegro who is ethnically Albanian. He entered the United States on or about August
14, 1999 using an Italian passport and seeking admission under the Visa Waiver Pilot
Program, which waives certain passport and/or visa requirements for some
nonimmigrants. 8 U.S.C. § 1187; 8 C.F.R. § 217. The documents Peravic used to gain
admission to the United States were fraudulent, however, so he was deemed removable
without a hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2). Peravic then requested asylum, and, in
May of 2001, his case was referred to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for a hearing on his
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
In his asylum application – dated February 20, 2003 – Peravic contended that he
was persecuted for both his Albanian ethnicity and his membership in the political
organization known as the Democratic League of Montenegro or LDMN. He stated that
his affiliation with LDMN caused him to be arrested and abused by Serbian police
officers. Peravic stated his belief that he would be arrested or killed if he were to return

-- 2 of 11 --

3
to his native country. In that same application, Peravic described various detentions,
beatings, and other persecutory acts by government authorities. Most significantly,
Peravic claimed that he was held for two days in September of 1996 and beaten “for the
whole time.” Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 70. In the affidavit attached to his
asylum application, Peravic described the beatings he endured during this period as
“vicious” and involving hitting and kicking to the face, back, and legs. A.R. at 107.
Peravic further attested that, after the beating, “my mother nursed me [at home] for the
next couple of weeks because I was frightened to go to the hospital and receive uncertain
treatment.” A.R. at 107-08.
In a decision dated January 26, 2004, the IJ determined that Peravic was not
credible and, accordingly, denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief. The IJ did not base this assessment on inconsistencies or omissions
regarding events central to Peravic’s asylum application. Instead, the IJ made her
credibility determination based on Peravic’s demeanor and her belief that Peravic gave
overly vague testimony. A.R. at 4-14.
The BIA reversed the IJ’s credibility finding because the IJ failed to provide
material inconsistences and omissions to support it. Nonetheless, the BIA determined
that, even were Peravic’s claims taken as credible, Peravic did not experience past
persecution or torture. Further, the BIA concluded that while the IJ was impatient and
abrupt with Peravic during his testimony, the IJ’s behavior did not violate Peravic’s
fundamental due process rights. A.R. at 2-3.

-- 3 of 11 --

4
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and “will review the
immigration judge’s opinion to the extent it was adopted by the BIA.” Cham v. Att’y
Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 690 (3d Cir. 2006).
II. Analysis
Because the issue is decisive, we begin and end with Peravic’s claim that the IJ
violated his fundamental due process to a fair hearing. Peravic argues that his due
process rights were violated because the IJ failed to give Peravic “‘a reasonable
opportunity to present evidence on [his] behalf.’” Cham, 445 F.3d at 691 (quoting
Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 596 (3d Cir. 2003)); see also Wang v. Att’y Gen.,
423 F.3d 260, 269 (3d Cir. 2005) (“No person [may] be deprived of his interests in the
absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter
is not predisposed to find against him.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Though Peravic has no constitutional right to asylum, “he was entitled, as a matter of due
process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.” Cham, 445 F.3d at 691.
The record before us reveals that the IJ presiding over Peravic’s claims was
impatient, abrupt, and belligerent during the deportation proceeding. The IJ conducted
most of Peravic’s examination herself, and, in so doing, constantly berated and
interrupted Peravic as he attempted to give his testimony. For example, in response to
Peravic’s tendency to answer questions before the interpreter finished his interpretation

-- 4 of 11 --

1 Peravic and Peravic’s counsel explained to the IJ that Peravic understood English
relatively well but could not speak it well, and that he was most comfortable responding
to questions in his native language, Albanian. A.R. at 76-77.
2 Indeed, the IJ spent a great deal of time arguing about Peravic’s English abilities.
The following exchange is one further example of the tension spurred by the topic:
Peravic: I’m sorry, Your Honor, I didn’t say that.
Judge: (For the record) The respondent just – for the record, the
respondent just corrected the interpreter’s English translation
after listening to [it] without a further translation.
Judge: Now what is it, sir? Tell me in English. What is it that you
need to say? Tell me in English, sir.
Judge: (For the record) He understands, obviously, English he’s just
making believe after being here for four years. He’s
repeatedly answered the questions before there’s been a
translation in the Albanian language.
Judge: So, what is it sir? Sir –
Peravic: I’m incapable of speaking English.
Judge: But you’re capable of understanding everything and, and
responding before there is a translation, is that right.
Peravic’s Lawyer: Your Honor, his, his best language is, is Albanian, but
honestly I, I don’t remember what the question was . . . .
A.R. at 75-76.
5
from English to Albanian,1 the IJ declared:
Sir, you’re being extremely abusive, very flippant, and, certainly, this on the
record does not look good. You are not going to like my decision in this
case if you continue along this way. I guarantee it. And no court of appeal
is going to be sympathetic to your case because you’re being extremely
evasive, flippant, fake, and avoiding the question. So keep it up because
it’s not going to be a peaceful, pleasant resolution for you.
A.R. at 78-79. 2 Far from suggesting, however, that Peravic was being “abusive,”
“evasive,” “flippant,” or “fake,” the record shows that the petitioner was harried and

-- 5 of 11 --

3Another illustrative example of the IJ’s aggressive questioning:
IJ: Sir, what happened in March of ‘93?
Peravic: I was in school.
IJ: I asked you what happened in March of ‘93.
Peravic: We began when there was six students in the class, the teacher began
to teach us, she took us in front of – he took us in front of the class.
He told me to continue reading. He was so offended in a way that I
had read before but just to put us down they made us go in front of
the class, I was very nervous. As I was reading I was shaking and
my voice –
IJ: You were a 16 year old who was shaking as he was reading? Is that
what you are telling me?
Peravic: The way they threatened us to do it, or to read.
IJ: Who threatened you? What are you talking about? You’re in school,
they ask you to read something.
Peravic: The teacher. He, actually, tried to attack me and hit me.
(continued...)
6
confused by the IJ’s aggressive questioning. In one exchange, the IJ asked Peravic “what
happened in March of 1999?” A.R. at 58. Peravic responded, “They [the police] came to
my house . . . . began checking and they were threatening and cursing, they had guns
pointed at us as they were walking. Because I was involved with this democratic party
movement, they were looking for information and propaganda that related to this party.”
A.R. at 58. The IJ then asked Peravic again “So, my question was what happened?”
Apparently taking the IJ’s reiteration of her initial question as a request for further
elaboration, Peravic described some of the things the police found in the search of his
home, but the IJ then retorted that she did not ask about “what was found” but, instead,
“what happened?” A.R. at 58. Exchanges such as these – in which Peravic uncertainly
responded to the IJ’s confusing questioning – were common3 at this hearing. The IJ’s

-- 6 of 11 --

3(...continued)
IJ: What – sir were you in a school with learning disabilities of some
kind?
Peravic: No.
A.R. at 65-66.
7
frequently hostile examination of Peravic appears to have undermined Peravic’s ability to
respond helpfully to the IJ’s questions and casts doubt on the IJ’s role as neutral arbiter.
More damaging, however, was the IJ’s interruption of Peravic’s testimony, which
prevented meaningful parts of Peravic’s story from becoming part of the record.
Specifically, the IJ’s questioning inhibited Peravic’s capacity to provide critical
information regarding his claims that he was detained and severely beaten in September
of 1996. The IJ began by asking Peravic what happened in September of 1996. A.R. at
70. Peravic responded that he was arrested, held for two days, and “beaten the whole
time” because of his membership in the LDMN. A.R. at 70. At that point, his lawyer
took over the examination to question Peravic about his involvement with the LDMN and
then attempted to have Peravic give a detailed account of his mistreatment while detained.
A.R. at 70-71. The IJ, however, interrupted before Peravic could respond, saying, “You
were held for two days, you already said you were beaten and you were questioned. [To
Peravic’s Lawyer] What else is there, counsel? And then he gets released. [To Peravic]
How did you get released?” A.R. at 71. The IJ then proceeded with a line of questioning
about the circumstances of Peravic’s release from detention, and, consequently, detailed
testimony about the extent of the beatings and the resulting injuries never made it into the

-- 7 of 11 --

8
record.
Nor does it appear that the IJ gave any weight to the affidavit attached to Peravic’s
asylum application, which contains the only detailed description of the September 1996
detention. In that affidavit Peravic stated:
At that police station I was held for two (2) days of intense interrogation and
vicious beatings. I was interrogated about the membership and leadership of
the LDMN, about secret meeting places and the location of certain persons
that had warrants of arrest against them as enemies of the state. I denied
knowledge of any specific persons and locations, but towards the second day
I could no longer answer any questions from the brutality of the beatings.
My face was swollen from being hit numerous times, specifically my eyes
and mouth. . . . At home my mother nursed me for the next couple of weeks
because I was frightened to go to the hospital and receive uncertain
treatment.
A.R. at 107-108. The IJ refused to credit the statements within the affidavit because she
concluded that “the incidences [sic] enumerated in the written statement seem to relate to
someone else other than this respondent” and “[t]here was no reference, by this
respondent, to the incidence [sic] in question and there was, absolutely, no degree of
elaboration by this respondent that would be consistent with the written submission
presented to this court.” A.R. at 12-13. Consequently, we can only speculate as to
whether the affidavit would have made a difference if Peravic had been given a
reasonable opportunity to present his evidence at the hearing.
The government does not attempt to justify – and the BIA did not accept – the IJ’s
basis for her negative credibility determination. Instead, the government argues that the
BIA had before it a sufficient record to conclude that “even if the respondent’s account

-- 8 of 11 --

9
were determined to be credible, the respondent did not satisfy his burden of proof
[because] he did not describe experiences that rose to the level of past persecution or
torture.” A.R. at 2-3. Consequently, the question now before us is whether the IJ barred
“important parts of [the petitioner’s] story from becoming part of the record,” with the
result of preventing the BIA’s decision from being based on “reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence.” Cham, 445 F.3d at 693-94.
In Cham, the IJ badgered the petitioner until he was unable to respond coherently
to the IJ’s questions as well and also engaged in “wholesale nitpicking” by focusing on
minor inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony. Id. at 691-92. Another significant
problem in Cham was the IJ’s failure to give the asylum applicant a “reasonable
opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf.” Id. at 692. These difficulties, we
concluded, prevented “important parts of [the petitioner’s] story from becoming part of
the record,” which “had the potential for affecting the outcome of the deportation
proceedings.” Id. at 694. Therefore, we held that the BIA’s decision could not have been
based on “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence,” and the petitioner “‘must be
given a second, and a real chance to “create a record” in a deportation hearing that
comports with the requirements of due process.’” Id. (quoting Podio v. INS, 153 F.3d
506, 511 (7th Cir. 1998)).
Much as in Cham, had the IJ allowed Peravic to testify comprehensively about the
abuse he claims to have suffered, “it is possible that material details surrounding his

-- 9 of 11 --

4 For example, while we have noted that persecution denotes “extreme conduct”
and that “the concept of persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society
regards as unfair, unjust or even unlawful or unconstitutional,” see Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d
1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993), we have also approvingly cited the Seventh Circuit’s approach
recognizing that even a single beating can constitute persecution if it is sufficiently
severe. Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 615-616 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Asani v. INS, 154
F.3d 719, 722-23 (7th Cir. 1998) and Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir. 1997)).
10
experience would have come to light, justifying relief from deportation.” Id. 4 In
Peravic’s case, there is not enough information for a neutral arbiter to make a reasoned
determination either way because the IJ curtailed testimony about the extent of Peravic’s
injuries sustained during the September of 1996 beating, was unwilling seriously to
evaluate the claims made in Peravic’s affidavit, and appeared to be generally predisposed
against the petitioner. Necessarily, then, we conclude that a second hearing on Peravic’s
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims is needed – a second hearing at which
the judge accords the petitioner due process and, indeed, respect. And, as we felt
compelled to do in Cham, we now urge that the Attorney General assign a different
immigration judge to any further proceedings involving Peravic. See id.; Korytnyuk v.
Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 272, 287 n.20 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[W]hile we recognize the assignment
of an [IJ] is within the province of the Attorney General, if on remand an IJ’s services are
needed, we believe the parties would be far better served by the assignment to those
proceedings of a different IJ.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
III. Conclusion

-- 10 of 11 --

11
For the reasons stated, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the order of the
BIA, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

-- 11 of 11 --