Edna Toussaint v. Attorney General of the United States

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3311
EDNA TOUSSAINT,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of a decision and order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A30-139-224)
Argued June 13, 2006
BEFORE: FISHER, GREENBERG, and LOURIE,* Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 26, 2006)
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
It is hereby ordered that the opinion of the court in this case filed July 26, 2006, is
amended as follows:
*Honorable Alan D. Lourie, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by
designation.
(1) The second complete paragraph in footnote 3, page 5, of the slip opinion as it

-- 1 of 2 --

2
originally read (see Toussaint v. Attorney General, 455 F.3d 409, 412 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006))
is deleted and the following paragraph is substituted for it:
Although the government does not dispute that we have jurisdiction
over this petition to review the decision and order of the BIA, we explain
our jurisdiction because, as we recently stated in Romanishyn v. Attorney
General, 455 F.3d 175, 180 (3d Cir. 2006), “[o]ur jurisdiction extends only
to constitutional claims and questions of law.” (citing 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(D)). We have recognized that “this [jurisdiction] includes
review of the BIA’s application of law to undisputed fact.” Singh v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 533, 541 (3d Cir. 2006). The question here involves not
disputed facts but whether the facts, even when accepted as true,
sufficiently demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be
subject to persecution or torture upon removal to Haiti. Therefore, we have
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s application of law to the facts of this case.
(2) The last sentence in the second complete paragraph on page 9 of the slip
opinion as it originally read (see Toussaint v. Attorney General, 455 F.3d at 415) is
deleted and the following sentence is substituted for it:
We are satisfied that the record both with respect to the evidence presented
and lack of evidence supports the BIA’s decision, and thus, even if our
jurisdiction extended to reviewing the BIA’s decision on this point, we
could not conclude that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to find
to the contrary. See id.
By the court,
/s/ Morton I. Greenberg
Circuit Judge
DATED: September 29, 2006
CRG/cc: Matthew L. Guadagno, Esq.
Ruchi Thaker, Esq.
David J. Kline, Esq.
Carl H. McIntyre Jr., Esq.
Papu Sandhu, Esq.

-- 2 of 2 --