No.

23-1270

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

PIERRE RILEY,
Petitioner,
v.

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

JOINT APPENDIX
VOLUME I

KEITH BRADLEY ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

Counsel of Record for Counsel of Record for
Petitioner. Respondent.
KAYLA MARIE MENDEZ SOLICITOR GENERAL
717 17th Street, Suite 1825 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
Denver, CO 80202 JUSTICE
(303) 830-1776 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
[email protected] Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-2217
CHRISTOPHER F. HAAS [email protected]
JEFFREY WALKER
2000 Huntington Center,
41 South High Street STEPHEN J. HAMMER
Columbus, OH 43215 Court-Appointed Amicus
Curiae in Support of
SAMUEL BALLINGRUD Judgement Below.
ELIZABETH F. PROFACI GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
CAROLINE M. SPADARO LLP
2500 M Street NW 2001 Ross Avenue
Washington, DC 20037 Suite 2100
Dallas, Texas 75201
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS [email protected]
(US) LLP

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Filed: May 31, 2024

Certiorari Granted: Nov. 4, 2024
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Volume I
Memorandum and Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Filed January 22, 2021 .............................. 1
Final Administrative Removal Order, In Removal
Proceedings under Section 238(b) of the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act, January 28, 2021 ..... 7
Order of the Immigration Judge, United States
Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Arlington Immigration
Court, Filed March 17, 2021................................ 9
Transcript of Hearing (Excerpt), United States
Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, United States Immigration
Court, July 27, 2021............................................. 11
Petition for Review to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Filed May 31,
2022 ...................................................................... 42
Volume II
Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative
Removal Order, In Removal Proceedings under
section 238(b) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, January 26, 2021 .......................................... 52
Record of Sworn Statement in Administrative
Proceedings, United States Department of
Homeland Security, January 26, 2021 ................ 55
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
Record of Determination/Reasonable Fear
Worksheet, United States Department of
Homeland Security, United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services, February 4, 2021 ..... 57
Reasonable Fear Interview Notes, United
States Department of Homeland Security,
United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, February 4, 2021 .................................. 60
Respondent’s I-589 Application, United States
Department of Justice, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, United States Immigration
Court, Arlington, Virginia, Filed May 12, 2021 .. 76
Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an
Immigration Judge, United States Department
of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, Filed
August 25, 2021 ................................................... 91
The following decision(s), opinion(s), and order(s) have
been omitted in printing this Joint Appendix because
they appear in the appendix of the Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari on the following Pages:
APPENDIX A – OPINION OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT, FILED APRIL 26, 2024 ..... 1a
APPENDIX B — OPINION OF THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION
REVIEW, BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS, FILED MAY 31, 2022 ....................... 7a
 TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
APPENDIX C — DECISION AND ORDER OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW, UNITED STATES
IMMIGRATION COURT, ARLINGTON,
VIRGINIA, DATED JULY 27, 2021 .................... 15a
 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
————
06 Cr. 80 (NRB)
————
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
- against -
ADREAN FRANCIS,
Defendant.
————
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
————
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
After a jury trial, defendant Adrean Francis was
convicted of the charges of conspiring to distribute
over 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing a firearm in fur-
therance of the conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c) and 2. On March 22, 2011, the Court imposed
a sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment. On October
5, 2020, the Court received defendant’s pro se motion
for compassionate release from North Lake CI.1 For
the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted.
Defendant moves for compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which permits a court to
“reduce a term of imprisonment” if, after considering
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), “it finds
that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant

1
Defendant has since been moved to CI Rivers.
 2
such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).2
A court may reduce a defendant’s sentence under
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) only “upon motion of the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons” or “upon motion of
the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted
all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the
Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s
behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
such a request by the warden of the defendant’s
facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Defendant submitted a copy of a letter by the Facility
Administrator of North Lake CI, denying his request
for compassionate release on a number of grounds
including that (1) the defendant’s medical condition
was stable and treatable in an institutional setting;
(2) the nature and circumstances of the offense showed
a disregard for public safety and the community;
(3) the defendant has only served approximately 57%
of his sentence to date; and (4) the defendant is subject
to a detainer lodged by the Immigration and Customs
and Enforcement (“ICE”) for possible deportation. ECF
No. 329, Ex. A.
As this motion is brought pro se, it should “be
construed liberally to raise the strongest arguments
[it] suggest[s].” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
470 F.3d 471, 479 (2d Cir. 2006). However, defendant
still bears the burden of demonstrating that his
release is justified under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). See

2
Defendant initially requested that the Court order his release
to home confinement in New York, but in his reply to the govern-
ment’s objection, acknowledges that he is subject to deportation
upon release and not eligible for home confinement. ECF No. 337.
 3
United States v. Butler, 970 F.2d 1017, 1026 (2d Cir.
1992). Because he has done so, his motion is granted.
Defendant states in his motion that he “is currently
on a cocktail of medication to deal with Type 2
Diabetes and has on several occasions been treated for
chronic bronchitis and pneumonia resulting in hospi-
talization.” ECF No. 329 at 6-7. While defendant has
not provided evidence to substantiate that he suffers
from these conditions, the government acknowledges
that “[b]ased on a review of the defendant’s North
Lake CI medical records, the defendant, a 41-year-old
male, suffers from Type II diabetes, which appears to
be controlled by medication.” ECF No. 334 at 3. Type
II diabetes has been identified by the CDC as a risk
factor for severe illness from COVID-19,3 and the
government concedes in its objection to defendant’s
motion that defendant satisfies the “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” inquiry under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 334 at 7. Indeed, several
courts in this Circuit have found that inmates suffering
from diabetes risk severe illness from COVID-19 and
are therefore eligible for compassionate release. See
e.g., United States v. Miranda, 457 F. Supp. 3d 141, 146
(D. Conn. 2020); United States v. Daugerdas, No. 09-cr-
581, 2020 WL 2097653, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020);
United States v. Colvin, 451 F. Supp. 3d 237, 241
(D. Conn. 2020). The Court agrees that defendant has
shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that
warrant his release.

3
See People with Certain Medical Conditions, CDC,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautio
ns/people-with-medical-conditions.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%
3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fneed-
extra-precautions%2Fgroups-at-higher-risk.html (last updated
Dec. 23, 2020).
 4
Because defendant has satisfied his burden under
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the Court now applies the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine if
they override defendant’s extraordinary and compelling
circumstances.4 We find that they do not. These factors
include “the nature and circumstances of the offense,”
the need for the sentence imposed “to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
law, and to provide just punishment for the offense,”
as well as “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records
who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(6).
The government points to defendant’s participation
in a drug conspiracy to distribute a substantial amount
of marijuana, and the fact that the Court imposed
the congressionally mandated minimum sentence on
defendant, to argue that reducing his sentence to time
served “would minimize the severity of the defendant’s
actions.” ECF No. 334 at 6. Congress, however, has
revisited thepenalties for defendant’s crimes since his
sentencing. Were defendant to be sentenced today, his
prior drug-related conviction would not constitute a
“serious drug felony” under 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A),
and he would not be subject to enhanced penalties.5

4
“[A] court confronted with a compassionate release motion is
still required to consider all the Section 3553(a) factors to the
extent they are applicable, and may deny such a motion if, in its
discretion, compassionate release is not warranted because
Section 3553(a) factors override, in any particular case, what
would otherwise be extraordinary and compelling circumstances.”
United States v. Gotti, No. 02 Cr. 743-07 (CM), 2020 WL 497987,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020).
5
Before trial, the government filed a prior drug felony
information stating that defendant was convicted of criminal
possession of marijuana in the third degree for which he received
 5
Moreover, at defendants’ sentencing, the Court stated
on the record that had it “felt free to do so, [it] would
not sentence [defendant] to more than . . . 15 years.”
Hr’g. Tr. 14:6-8 (Mar. 22, 2011). Given the change in
the law and the Court’s contemporaneous view of the
appropriate sentence, the Court finds that defendant
serving approximately fourteen and a half years in
prison amply “provide[s] just punishment” for his
offenses and otherwise satisfies the goals of § 3553 and
is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
by the Sentencing Commission. The Court is likewise
satisfied that defendant will not pose a danger to
any persons or to the community, as the government
informs us that defendant is subject to an active
ICE detainer and that ICE intends to effectuate the
defendant’s removal to his home country of Jamaica
upon his release. ECF No. 334 at 4.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion
is granted. Defendant is to be released solely to ICE
custody in order to initiate his removal proceedings to
Jamaica.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
January 22, 2020

a sentence of five years’ probation. ECF No. 90. Possession of

marijuana in the third degree is a Class E felony under New York
law for which the maximum term of imprisonment is four years.
N.Y. Penal Law §§ 70.00(2)(e); 221.20 (McKinney). A “serious
drug felony” under the amended § 841 is defined inter alia as
“an offense under state law . . . for which the maximum term of
imprisonment [is] ten years” and for which “the offender served
a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 802(57). Defendant’s prior felony satisfies
neither requirement.
 6

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant (pro se)

Adrean Francis

A copy of the foregoing Memorandum and

Order have been mailed to the following:
Adrean Francis (#53403-054)
CI Rivers
145 Parker’s Fishery Rd.
Winton, NC 27986
 7
Final Administrative Removal Order
In removal proceedings under section 238(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act
Event No: N0R2101000081
FIN: 1307999559
File Number 840
Date January 26, 2021
To: PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN RILEY
AKA: FRANCIS, ADRIAN; RILEY, PEIRRE
Address: ICE/BRO Custody
(Number, Street, City, State and ZIP Code)
Telephone:
(Area Code end Phone Number)

ORDER
Based upon the allegations set forth in the Notice of
Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order
and evidence contained in the administrative record,
I, the undersigned Deciding Officer of the Department
of Homeland Security, make the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law. I find that you are not
a citizen or national of the United States and that
you are not lawfully admitted for permanent resi-
dence. I further find that you have a final conviction
for an aggravated felony as defined in section
101(a)(43)(u/b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(Act) as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(u/b), and are
ineligible for any relief from removal that the
Secretary of Homeland Security, may grant in an
exercise of discretion. I further find that the admin-
istrative record established by clear, convincing,
and unequivocal evidence that you are deportable
as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony pursuant
to section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
 8
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). By the power and authority vested in
the Secretary of Homeland Security, and in me as the
Secretary’s delegate under the laws of the United
States, I find you deportable as charged and order that
you be removed from the United States to:
Jamaica
or to any alternate country prescribed in section 241 of
the Act.
Digitally signed bv
CRAIG R. FILECCIA
Date 2021.01.28
13:35:38 -05’00’

C. 7429 FILECCIA CRAIG R FILECCIA

(Signature of Authorized Official)
(A)AFOD
(Title of Official)
01/28/2021 SALEM, VA
(Date and Office Location)

Certificate of Service
I served this FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMOVAL
ORDER upon the above named individual.
1/28/2021 Norfolk, VA Personal
(Date Time, Place and Manner of Service)
/s/ [Illegible]
(Signature and Title of Officer)

Form I-851A (Rev. 08/01/07)

 9
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
ARLINGTON IMMIGRATION COURT
Respondent Name:
RILEY, PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN
To:
RILEY, PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN
DHS/ICE/CDF
P.O BOX 1460
BOWLING GREEN, VA 22427
Alien Registration Number:
840
Riders:
In Reasonable Fear Case Proceedings
Initiated by the Department of Homeland Security
Date:
03/17/2021
ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
On 03/17/2021, a review of the Department of
Homeland Security’s (DHS) Reasonable Fear
Determination was held in the matter noted above.
Testimony  was  was not taken regarding the
alien’s background and the alien’s fear of returning to
the country of origin or last habitual residence.
ORDER: After consideration of the evidence, the
immigration court finds that the alien  has  has not
established a reasonable possibility that the alien
would be persecuted on the basis of a protected ground,
or a reasonable possibility that the alien would be
tortured in the country of removal.
 The immigration court concurs in the DHS
Reasonable Fear Determination because:
 10
Additional reasoning  is  is not continued on a
separate sheet. The case is returned to the DHS for
removal of the alien. This is a Final Order. Pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1), no administrative appeal is
available. However, you may file a petition for review
within 30 days with the appropriate Circuit Court of
Appeals to appeal this decision pursuant to INA § 242.
 The Court vacates the decision of the DHS
immigration officer. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §
1208.31(g)(2), the alien is hereby placed in
“withholding-only” proceedings.
/s/ Karen Donoso Stevens
Immigration Judge: Donoso Stevens, Karen
03/17/2021
Appeal:
Department of Homeland Security:
 waived
 reserved
Respondent:
 waived
 reserved
Appeal Due:
Certificate of Service
This document was served:
Via: [M] Mail | [P] Personal Service | [E] Electronic
Service
To: [ ] Alien | [M] Alien c/o custodial officer | [ ] Alien’s
atty/rep. | [M] DHS
By: Donoso Stevens, Karen, Immigration Judge
Date: 03/17/2021
 11
[1] U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
United States Immigration Court
————
File: A -840
————
In the Matter of
PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN RILEY
Applicant
————
IN WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS
Transcript of Hearing
————
Before Choi, Raphael, Immigration Judge
Date: July 27, 2021
Place: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Transcribed by Free State Reporting, Inc.-3
Official Interpreter:
Language:
Appearances:
For the Applicant: DIMITAR GEORGIEV REMO,
For the DHS: HEIDI HALL
* * *
[38] The last time I entered the United States was
February 3, ’95.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And have you traveled outside of the United States
since?
 12
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
No I have not traveled since then.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
So how long have you been in the United States
since you last entered?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
A little over 26 years.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Okay. And, Mr. Riley, in your declaration you state
that you believed yourself to be a United States citizen.
Why is that?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Well the reason for that is when I came to the United
States in ’95 I came here to live with my dad and he
had indicated to me that I won’t be going back to
Jamaica and he, he’s going to file for my U.S.
citizenship because he’s a citizen. He’s been a citizen
since 1980. And it should derive me citizenship
through derivative – it says once he, once he filed it it
should be automatic and he did. He paid a lawyer
sometime in ’96 to do that so that’s how I thought I was
a United States citizen.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And when did you find out that you were not a
United States citizen?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
The first time was in a little after my trial in 2008
when ICE agents saw me to interview me and then the
second time there was a detain placed on me when I
was transferred to Elkton, Ohio Facility in 2015.
 13
[39] MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, you mentioned that you had a trial –
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
And, and yeah. I was going to say well sure be it ICE
custody I didn’t know that I am not a citizen.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, you mentioned a trial. What happened?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
I distributed marijuana back in the past. I got
caught and was sentenced to 25 years.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And what if anything did you use the proceeds from
that distribution to do with?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Hold up. You broke up for a second. Can you repeat
that?
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
What if anything did you use the proceeds from the
distribution to do with the money that you got from
the distribution. What did you use that money for?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Well me and a couple of my co-defendants and
associates, we had opened up a record label. And we
had invested in promoting and producing and hosting
one of the largest hip hop shows in Jamaica called
Sashi [phonetic sp.].
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Sashi. And, Mr. Riley, while you were incarcerated
what if anything did you do to better your life?
 14
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
[40] Well first I earned – excuse me.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
I didn’t say anything.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Somebody say something.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Actually, no.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
That’s not relevant, counsel. I just need you to go
into why he’s more likely than not to be tortured.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Okay, Your Honor.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, why do you fear –
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
You have to understand equities and his contacts in
the United States, it’s not relevant to these proceedings.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Understood, Your Honor.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, why do you fear going back to Jamaica?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Well the reason I fear going back to Jamaica is
because of the specific duress on account of my
affiliation and threats that I will be killed if I return
to Jamaica. are the people who
 15
have made threats and is still making direct threats
[41] against my life. He gave orders and murdered two
of my male cousins and he was never held accountable.
And that’s based on the fact that he had strong
connections and influence on law enforcement in
Jamaica and politicians. He’s an ex-police officer for
the Jamaican –
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Hold on, hold on, hold on. What is this individual’s
name again?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
. How do you know
?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes. He’s actually from the community,
neighborhood that I grew up in called
, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
. Is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yeah the name of the community, the neighborhood
that I grew up in. the name of it is and it’s
in in Kingston, Jamaica.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. Well you left that area in 1995. And you have
not returned.
 16
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
So why would anyone in that old neighborhood be
interested in you much less remember you?
[42] MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Well, Your Honor, when you asked me in particular
anyone or ?
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. Well let’s go with specifically.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Okay. Well; took over that
neighborhood as area leader in a don, Your Honor.
When an area leader in a don is politically backed by
a political constituency in Jamaica. There are two
major political constituencies in Jamaica. One is the
PNP, and the second one is the JLP. The PNP means
People’s National Party, and the JLP means Jamaica
Label Party. So now that community, that neighborhood
was at first a PNP constituency which my grandpar-
ents were stern supporters of that political party. So
now in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s that neighborhood
was taken over by the JLP constituency and when they
came in they burned people’s house down, they kill
people. They force people to vote for them you know.
They torture people and they banished people from the
neighborhood. They did all types of cruel acts, Your
Honor. So now in saying that took
over this neighborhood in the early 2000’s as the
political area leader and don. So now when that
happened he – actually he migrated to the United
States and became a big drug kingpin. So even though
 17
he migrated here he still called the shots. He still give
orders. He still did everything. So how I’m connected
to this was my cousin, [phonetic sp.]
him and actually shared – no not
shared, his daughter and ’s kids are cousins. So
now he would be in contact with and basically
anybody that left from that community and neighborhood
that migrated he will still contact them to donate
money to political campaigns for the JLP constituen-
cies. And to – he’s pretty tied in with all facets of law
enforcement in Jamaica, Your Honor, at his behest. He
has all [43] these political people at his behest like
doing things for him, all these biddings. And when I
say biddings I mean killing people for him, giving him
connections as far as to push his drug operations and
stuff as that nature. So now back to my cousin, ,
my cousin reach out.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
No, no. Hold on, hold on, hold on.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Excuse me, sorry, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
is part of the JOC Party, is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
JLP Party, Your Honor. Jamaica Labor Party.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
JLP. Okay.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes because he’s an area leader in a don and they
you know – everywhere in Jamaica every area leader
and every don is run by a political constituency. And
 18
they have the backing of politicians and police officers
and JDF which is the Jamaica Defense Force which is
equivalent to soldiers.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay, hold on.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
All right, counsel.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir.
[44] JUDGE TO MR. REMO
There’s background. I assume you submitted
background information on this.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor. The criminal history of
appears in tab D, page 28.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
Okay, I’m more curious about the country condition
information.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
About the JLP Party and the influence of people – or
the influence of dons or –
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor. Relevant evidence appears on page
190, 169 and 214.
 19
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
All right. Hold on one second.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay, back to the respondent. Okay, sir,
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You said that this individual came to the
United States. Is that correct?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Where is he today?
[45] MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
He’s back in Jamaica, Your Honor, he was deported
back to Jamaica some time in .
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Do you know where he resides in Jamaica?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Actually people of ’s stature, Your
Honor, doesn’t reside at any one place. He has multiple
properties all through Jamaica and we, we have
submitted evidence that actually shows that of
seizures of some of his properties in Jamaica.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. You said he was deported back in . Is that
right?
 20
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yeah sometime in . Late I would say.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
And how do you know this?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
How do – people have seen him that I’ve spoken to,
Your Honor. I’m in contact with –
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Who was that?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Excuse me. My mom and my sister. And I’ve called
people from the community that have seen him, drove
through the community to check on things because he
still runs that community, Your Honor. He’s still the
don in the area of that community, Your Honor.
[46] JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
And your mother and sister are in Jamaica currently
in that neighborhood that’s run by and the
JLP Party. Is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Have your relatives been threatened by ?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor. They have been threatened. Mostly
male relatives. Well my mom and my sister have been
lately but just to clarify. What are you talking about in
the past, Your Honor or presently?
 21
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Well both. But it sounds like the male relatives have
been threatned in the past and then they along with
the mom and sister continue to be threatned currently,
is that correct?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir. It is – soon as my reduction – sentence
reduction was made public and everybody knew at
some point I was in Immigration custody there were
multiple threats, daily threats coming into my mom
and my sister and some to my brother, Ramiro
Thompson. My son, Pierre Junior and my stepdad. All
know about these threats and all have been receiving
threats and it was multiple threats on Jamaica, a well-
known Jamaica social media site. It’s called Matey and
Groupie [phonetic sp.]. one called the pink wall. I think
my brother have the facts on that. It’s been publicized.
Everybody in California. Well everybody I know in
California. Everybody that knows me in Jamaica, New
York, and North Carolina.
[47] JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. The big question is –
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Why does have any interest in harming
you?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Well yes, Your Honor. After he murdered my two
cousins, me coming to Jamaica he sees as a threat,
Your Honor.
 22
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
How do you know this?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
That’s the big question.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
How do you know this?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
I know this, Your Honor, because it’s just the
Jamaican lifestyle, Your Honor. When you kill
somebody’s cousin you got to expect that retaliation is
coming. And this is how Jamaican lifestyle is. That’s
why he killed my second cousin and that’s why he
threatned and send out gang members to shoot at
some of my other cousins back in Jamacia before they
migrated.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. So thinks that you would seek
revenge on him for killing your two cousins. Is that
right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
[48] Yes, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
And he thinks this because that’s the Jamaican way,
is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir. I’m related to that family and he threatened
every male member in that family and most of them
have migrated because of that situation. So now me
coming to Jamaica he just sees me as a threat coming
there to retaliate against him. He had already
 23
threatned everybody, every male member in that
family, Your Honor. Killed two of us and threatned
every male member of that family.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
So he starts calling –
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
So where are all the male members of your family?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Most of them migrated to the United States. They’re
here in the United States, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You said killed two cousins for what
reason?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, Your Honor, that’s what I was trying to lay the
context for earlier. When – so when he tried to reach
out to my cousin, , he – matter of fact he – that’s
what I was explaining earlier about the relations of his
kids and ’s kids. So he was pretty close to
in particular.
[49] JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Now who is ? Who is ?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Now being a don – is my – he’s my
cousin, Your Honor.
 24
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Is he, is he one of ’s victims?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
So he’s one of two cousins who passed away. Is that
right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes. gave orders to kill.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. So why did he do that?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
How did – that started, Your Honor, was , he
would call to basically donate money as far as
sending back to the community to donate to his cause.
And when I say his cause I mean like to basically send
money back to the neighborhood to make sur things is
okay with everybody, to fund political campaigns and
pay off government officials that’s on his payroll. So
after that – after a while – I mean did appease
to that in donating to that but after that is just
tired of it and say, hey man listen I don’t want to have
anything to do with that Jamaican politics and stuff
anymore, none of that stuff. And so he took that as a
sign of disrespect because that’s how dons in Jamaica
run their area. It doesn’t matter if you migrated and
come to the United States or not. Once you have family
ties back there he still thinks that he [50] controls
people even though you live in the United States. So
now when O’Neal told him, no I don’t want to have
nothing to do with that stuff anymore, he took that as
 25
disrespect that you’re going against the order which
means like you’re not doing what I tell you to do.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Now how do you know this?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Him and would get into arguments like –
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
How do you know this?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
I spoke to when he was alive at the time. And
remember used to call us and try to tell us
about what he said because he had told to
reach out to me and the rest of my male cousins. But
we had told like hey man, listen man we don’t
have nothing to do with that world. We – I left Jamaica
a long time ago. I am not got nothing to do with that
man and you shouldn’t either. So we would talk
because we grew up pretty close. That’s how I know,
Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay and then your other cousin, the one who was
killed, why was he killed?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
He was killed because when he got – he had got
deported sometime in and when nothing was
done about ’s murder in Jamaica basically the
police just discarded it. They like didn’t care because
they’re pretty connected to because
he was ex-police himself and he has massive political
ties. And that’s how just the dons run the areas and
that’s how politics goes in Jamaica, Your Honor. So now
 26
[51] when he got deported, [phonetic sp.],
my cousin. When he got deported he started putting
pressure on the police. Central Kingston Police station.
That is the police station that has jurisdiction over the
community I grew up in. so he started putting pressure
on them saying why isn’t nobody doing anything about
the murder when they know who did it and they know
what happened. Because it’s a well-known situation in
my community, Your Honor. So now when he starts
putting pressure on the police about doing something
about it and he actually went over their heads to their
supervisors which I think is, I think it’s intercom, yeah
that’s the name of the supervisors that supervise
police that’s not doing their job.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Hold on, hold on. What is this other cousin’s name?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
So he tries to get police investigate ’s murder
but then what happened?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yeah so nothing happened, Your Honor. So then after
nothing happened, after going to like I said the Central
Kingston Police Station which I had said before,
they’re the ones that’s in charge of the community, the
jurisdiction of my community. Now when you see
nothing is happening he went to their – he went over
their heads to their superiors and started telling them
to put pressure on them to do something about it. So
shortly after that was killed. The order was
given and was killed, Your Honor.
 27
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
And who gave the order?
[52] MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
gave the order, Your Honor. He
runs that community.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
How do you know, sir? How do you know?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
How do I know is because the people that killed my
cousin still live in that community, Your Honor. People
that witness it.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Yeah how do you know it was who gave
the order to kill your cousin, ?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Because, Your Honor, and his
gang members, his henchmen, they brag about this
stuff, Your Honor. You know they would brag about
the – we get out of killing boy, that’s patchua [phonetic
sp.] for saying that yeah, yeah we gave the order to kill
those guys, yeah because they went against the grain,
they went against the order. It’s not hidden. That’s how
the community is ran. People live in fear. They have to
do what he says and that’s just how it is in Jamaica,
Your Honor. Political area leader dons. So now and
back to what you said about how do I know – I actually
saw –
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on.
 28
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Sorry, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
So after was killed did the police investigate
his death?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
[53] No, sir. No, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You have other male relatives living there in
Jamaica, is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yeah in Jamaica, no, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You do not have any male relatives living there?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
No, sir. He threatened every single one of them. And
he’s very powerful and it’s a losing battle to go up
against individual as .
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You ever meet ?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yeah I saw him growing up in the neighborhood.
Because we’re all from the same neighborhood, Your
Honor. I know him growing up. He’s older than me but
I know him.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Were you friends?
 29
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
No, no, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
All right. Counsel, sorry, go ahead.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
[54] Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, what happened – how did your family
react after you received your compassionate release
order in January?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Excuse me, you broke up for a second. What you say
–
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
To your knowledge, how did your family react?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
That is –
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Sorry. Is that better?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
It’s cracking, the video is cracking up and the sound
is cracking up.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Is this better? Little –
 30
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Okay.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah it’s still kind of muddled but okay.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Okay. I’ll try to speak into the microphone. After
your compassionate release, to your knowledge, how
did your family react to your release?
[55] MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
I mean they were happy. They were happy about my
release, my reduction sentence.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And were they posting anything on social media?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yes. They were posting that you know my son and
my brother and the rest of my family congratulate me
and happy, I’m coming out sometime soon.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And in your declaration you stated that your mother
started receiving threats. What were the nature of
those threats?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
You said my mother, right?
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Yes.
 31
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Cracking up again, man. Yeah okay. So now my mom
had like about couple days after my immediate release
– excuse me, sentence reduction. My mom started
receiving threats like two, three times a day. People
calling her talking about they had the green light to
kill me and anywhere I go in Jamaica I can’t hide, they
going to kill me as soon as I get down there. So now
one day she was at work and the neighbor, Ms. Patsy,
called her and told her that some guys they got masks
over their face in a blue Toyota roller car, pulled up and
jumped out in front of her home and jumped out in
front of Ms. Patsy and asked if I return back from the
United States yet. So now she called my mom and told
my mom what was going on. So now with all the
threats and that [56] happened my mom went to the
same Central Police Kingston Station that has
restriction, to try to lay a report. So now the front desk
officer at the front desk he told her he’s not going to
take a report because I’m not in Jamaica yet an di
haven’t been harmed yet. And she went on to try to
describe the calls and how recent the calls have been
coming in and she tried to tell them about what Ms.
Patsy told her about the car, and the guy, the masked
man that came out asking for me. And he just wouldn’t
take a statement. So now she start ed getting a little
upset like why are you not taking, why are you not
taking a report from me. So now the sergeant came out
and when he came out he basically – he gave it to her,
man. He told her to hey listen, your son is going to be
a deportee in Jamaica – the government of Jamaica
don’t have time to protect deportees. That’s not our job,
it’s not our business and the reason why your son is
getting threats is because it’s payback. He’s a criminal.
And things of that nature and they telling her that he
going to have to just be like everybody else that comes
 32
down here, he going to have to pay for protection. It’s
not the Jamaican government’s problem. It’s the
United States problem, that’s where he broke the law.
So now after that happened she went to, she went to
the same intercom again and tried to report them not
taking any reports from her. So now that – she was at
work in Western Kingston, the coronation of Mark and
Western Kingston. She’s a clothes vendor. That’s where
she works. She sells clothes. Now out t here
and two of his henchmen pulled up on her
and tell her that now hey listen we know about you
trying to lay reports, you better knock it off and tell
your son anytime him come on Jamaica a stray bullet
– well that was patchua I just spoke but what that
means is that any time you come to Jamaica it’s going
to be gun shots for him.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
And, Your Honor, corroborating –
[57] MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
And I told her after –
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Sorry. Your Honor. Corroborating evidence about the
mistreatment of deportees appears in tab I starting on
page 263.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Sorry, Mr. Riley, continue.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah so now basically when that – when he came –
when he pulled up on, when he pulled up on my mom
at her workplace and said that to her I basically told
her, hey listen man, don’t go to no stings, don’t go to no
– I don’t care who – what kind of government official
 33
just stop going there because they’re not going to help
us and I’m just not going to be able to live with myself
if something should happen to you over this. See what
I’m saying. So I just tell her listen. Stop going to lay
reports. Just stay by yourself. Don’t ask these people
for no help because obviously they’re not gong to help
us. See what I’m saying? And that really kind of upset
me because I mean I’m not going to be able to live with
myself if something should happen to my mom, you
know what I’m saying, or my little sister. So that’s
what I told her, man.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, you mentioned your little sister. To your
knowledge what threats has she received against her
life?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yes. She is in a similar situation. After my sentence
reduction she started getting threats too over the
Facebook and Instagram and she had received a few
calls. So now my sister, she’s a popular concert hoster
and promoter. That’s her thing in [58] Jamaica. So now
one day she was hosting a day rave party, that’s the
name of the party that they keep in Jamaica, and two
guys walked up to her and told her that they have the
green light, they got the green light to kill me on sight.
And the family better not be hiding me and not to
worry because they got people at the airport and if my
name comes up on the list they going to get it. You
know Aleyah [phonetic sp.], she’s a little braver girl.
She asked them why you want to kill my brother and
they told her to stay out of man business. She’s a
woman, stay out of man business. So Aleyah has a
security – actually he’s a police officer in Jamaica, Mr.
Samuels. He does the security for her.
 34
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay hold on, hold on, hold on.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, yes, sir.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Your sister is currently in Jamaica. Is that right?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Yes, yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Has she herself been threatened or has she only
been approached with threats to you?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
What do you mean by threatned like her life?.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Correct?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
[59] No they didn’t threaten her life, Your Honor.
They, they called her and over Facebook and
Instagram and called her on her phone and the two
guys walked up to her sending the threats about me,
saying that they got the green light to kill me, Your
Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
And for what reason did they say this to your sister,
if you know?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Your Honor, that’s , Your Honor.
Sending them to threaten me, Your Honor. That’s the
 35
reason. This is all coming from and
his affiliates and his henchmen and his gang members
that he runs, Your Honor. The multiple gangs that he
runs in Jamaica, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Has he ever been arrested in Jamaica?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
?
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
As far as you know, yes, has he ever been arrested in
Jamaica?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
No, Your Honor. He’s not going to be arrested. He’s
backed by politicians and government officials, Your
Honor. He’s not going to be arrested.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
Go ahead, counsel.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
[60] Mr. Riley, why does want to kill you?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Like I told Your Honor, Dimitar, retaliation. He’s
afraid of retaliation. And I’m members of the family
that he threatned which is – I’m family members with
and .
 36
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Now, Mr. Riley, in your declaration you mentioned
and individual named, George. Who is George?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
George is a friend that grew upon the same
community that me and came from.
We all grew up, we all came from the same community,
which is .
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And what do you talk about George I your
declaration?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Well had spoke to George about – after
had died and basically just telling George like
yeah he did that because disrespect, he went against
the grain and basically like you me, I’m going to kill all
of them family which means I’m going to kill all his
family if they try to come at me.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And when did George tell you about this?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
This was a little after died, a couple months.
So I want to say it was like .
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
[61] Okay. And similarly, Mr. Riley, you mentioned
individual, Sammy or Sam, in your declaration. Who is
Sam?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah. Sam is another, another guy that comes from
the neighborhood, the community.
 37
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Okay. And you mentioned that he was talking “shit”.
What did you mean by that?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah so that was in so that’s pretty much like
a little after he was deported to Jamaica like – because
this was like six years after died. So he was
talking shit meaning he was still kind of threatening
the family like, you tell them it’s still on and popping
you know I’m not afraid of none of that, meaning I’m
not afraid of any of them.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And, Mr. Riley, why can’t you move to another part
of Jamaica if has such a hard grip on
, your community?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Hold up. You broke up. Say it again.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Why are you unable to move to another part of
Jamaica if you’re deported?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Because I have to be registered with the
government. And being registered with the
government I will be deemed a restricted person that
means I have to like wear ankle monitors and report
to them and that’s where has his influence.
He’s political tied to every facet of law enforcement in
Jamaica and government people.
 38
[62] MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And what if any family do you have outside of
Kingston?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
None. I don’t have any family. I just have my mom
and my sister and same home that my grandparents
lived in.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And, Mr. Riley, why did you not tell any of this to the
officer who conducted your reasonable fear interview?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
When I first came into ICE custody that was like
about January 28th. As you know I was compassionate
release under – for Covid reasons. That’s the reason
why the judge released me from – so now coming from
prison and coming over here and the same day I came
in I noticed there were Covid signs on the cell doors.
So now that had put me just in a state of stress, like
tremendous stress you know the judge just released
me because she didn’t want me to you know contract
the disease to become terminally ill or die and now
here I am with this disease, this deadly disease facing
me right int eh face. So I was just stressed. I was going
through a lot of stress. And plus I was on quarantine
for 14 days, mandatory quarantine.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Was it 14 days or 4 days? You broke up.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
No, 14 days, 14 days.
 39
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Your Honor, can you hear me?
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
[63] Yes we can hear you.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Yes.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Okay. I thought you said –
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Continue.
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
Yeah 14 days. So my movements was restricted. I
was allowed to use the one you know probably once
every two days. So I wasn’t in contact with my family.
I didn’t know all these threats was going on. Because
these threats had started happening right after I got
released. So I wasn’t in contact with them. And plus
yeah my family too, they didn’t want to tell me a lot of
this stuff because they was afraid it triggered my
health conditions and stuff like that.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
Mr. Riley, what will happen if the Judge grants your
application today?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
First, I would like to make amends to my children.
To my family you know, to society. And what I mean by
making amends to my children is I want to sit them
down, I want to say I apologize for missing their
childhood. You know what I mean, based on the bad
choices I made back int eh past. And I know that it’s
 40
gone and I can’t get it back but I would really, I would
really like to try my best to make it up to them anyway
possible. Whatever that takes. And you know as far as
making amends to society I just like you know want to
get a job, stay out of trouble, you know be an asset to
society. Because I used to work at American Trade
Patent office in prison and I’m really thinking [64]
about calling them up and asking them for a job.
Because I was an SME, [indiscernible] expert. So you
know I definitely want to do that. I’m going to go live
with Ramiro and my son, he’s got a [indiscernible], my
daughter, Kayla [phonetic sp.], is trying to get into
cosmetics so I just want to be there for them. Definitely
get a job, stay out of trouble. I know what’s important,
man. Today I know what’s important and that’s family.
I just want to be there with my family.
MR. REMO TO MR. RILEY
And, Mr. Riley, just briefly before we conclude who is
[phonetic sp.]?
MR. RILEY TO MR. REMO
, three of my children, that’s the
father of three of my children’s little brother. Their
brother. The father of their brother and he was
deported also back in Jamaica and he was shot in the
head and killed right in front of his mother and sister.
That happened in March of this year.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. REMO
Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Sir, did you ever work with ?
 41
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
No, no, Your Honor.
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
You know when was deported back to
Jamaica?
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
[65] Sometime in , Your Honor. I will more
say
JUDGE TO MR. RILEY
Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE FOR THE RECORD
All right. We’re going to take a ten minute recess.
Come back and start cross.
MR. REMO TO JUDGE
Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE FOR THE RECORD
All right. We are off the record.
MR. RILEY TO JUDGE
Thank you, Your Honor.
* * *
 42
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
————
PIERRE RILEY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
————
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Pierre Riley hereby petition the court for review
of the Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(name of agency, board or commission) entered on
May 31, 2022.
/s/ Dimitar P. Georgiev-Remmel
Signature of attorney or unrepresented party
Dimitar Plamenov Georgiev-Remmel
Printed name
Address: Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington DC, 20037
Email address: [email protected]
Phone number: (202) 457-6506
 43
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
_________________________________________________
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
Georgiev-Remmel, Dimitar P.
McKenna& Associates, LLC
1220 N. Fillmore St. Suite 300
Arlington VA 22201
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - WAS
1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 900
Arlington VA 22202
Name: RILEY, PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN
840
Date of this Notice: 5/31/2022
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in
the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donna Carr
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Userteam: Docket
Panel Members:
Baird, Michael P.
Gorman, Stephanie
Wilson, Earle B.
 44
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
_________________________________________________
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
RILEY, PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN
A 097534840
11093 SW LEWIS MEMORIAL DR
BOWLING GREEN VA 22427
DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - WAS
1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 900
Arlington VA 22202
Name: RILEY, PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN
840
Date of this Notice: 5/31/2022
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the
above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to
you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has
been served with this decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you
be removed from the United States or affirms an
Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you be
removed, any petition for review of the attached
decision must be filed with and received by the
appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date
of the decision.
Sincerely,
/s/ Donna Carr
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure Userteam: Docket
 45
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
[FILED May 31, 2022]
————
MATTER OF:
Pierre Yassue Nashun RILEY, 840
Applicant
————
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Dimitar P. Georgiev-
Remmel, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS: Heidi A. Hall, Assistant Chief
Counsel
IN WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS
On Appeal from a Decision of the Immigration Court,
Arlington, VA
Before: Baird, Appellate Immigration Judge; Gorman,
Appellate Immigration Judge; Wilson,
Appellate Immigration Judge
Opinion by Appellate Immigration Judge Wilson
WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judge
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has
appealed from an Immigration Judge’s July 27, 2021,
decision granting the applicant’s request for protection
under the regulations implementing the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 The applicant, a native and

1
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty
 46
citizen of Jamaica, has filed responses in opposition to
DHS’ appeal. The appeal will be sustained.
We review the Immigration Judge’s factual findings
for clear error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). Questions of
law, discretion and judgment, and all other issues, are
reviewed de novo. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
The applicant alleged before the Immigration Judge
that a man named , a gang leader in
his former neighborhood in Kingston and a drug
kingpin, will torture or kill him upon his return to
Jamaica. He alleges that killed two of the
applicant’s cousins in 2008 and 2011 and has recently
sent death threats to his mother and sister because he
believes the applicant will seek retribution against
him for killing his cousins (IJ at 8; Tr. at 47-48, 55-59;
Exhs. 2, 6A).
The Immigration Judge found that based on the
applicant’s credible testimony and the background
information in the case he has demonstrated that he
faces a particularized risk of torture and that it is more
likely than not that will harm the applicant
upon his return to Jamaica (IJ at 9-10). In addition,
the Immigration Judge found that the applicant
credibly testified that has influence with the
neighborhood and the police, that the applicant would
be forced to register with the police and keep them
informed of his movements, which would allow

Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United
States Nov. 20, 1994). The applicant’s attorney stated that he is
only applying for deferral of removal under the CAT (Tr. at 33).
The Immigration Judge found the applicant is not eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal under the INA or withholding of
removal under the CAT because he has been convicted of a
particularly serious crime (IJ at 6). This finding has not been
contested on appeal.
 47
to know his whereabouts and that he will
more likely than not be tortured with the acquiescence
of the government (IJ at 10).
DHS challenges the Immigration Judge's positive
credibility determination (IJ at 4-6). Based on the
deferential clear error standard of review, we discern
no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s credibility
determination and will treat the applicant’s testimony
as credible for purposes of this appeal.
However, as explained more fully below, we discern
clear error in the Immigration Judge’s factual findings
regarding what is likely to happen to the applicant
upon his removal to Jamaica, and we agree with DHS
that the applicant has not met his burden of proof to
show eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT.
The applicant bears the burden to show that it is more
likely than not that he would be tortured in Jamaica
by, or with the consent or acquiescence (to include the
concept of willful blindness) of, a public official or an
individual acting in an official capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§
1208.16(c), 1208.18. The applicant must make two
distinct showings: (i) likely future mistreatment, i.e.,
that it is more likely than not he will endure severe
pain or suffering that is intentionally inflicted; and (ii)
that the likely future mistreatment will occur at the
hands of the government or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government. Cruz-Quintanilla v.
Whitaker, 914 F.3d 884, 886 (4th Cir. 2019). Importantly,
an applicant cannot establish eligibility by stringing
together a series of suppositions to show that it is more
likely than not that torture will result where the
evidence does not establish that each step in the
hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to
happen. Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912, 917-18
(A.G. 2006). An Immigration Judge’s findings regarding
 48
the likelihood of future harm and of acquiescence by
the government (i.e., what is likely to happen) are
factual findings that the Board reviews for clear error.
Whether that predicted future harm meets the
definition of torture and whether future governmental
conduct meets the definition of consent or acquies-
cence are questions of law we review de novo. Turkson
v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 530 (4th Cir. 2012).
DHS argues on appeal that the Immigration Judge
erred in finding that the applicant showed he will more
likely than not be tortured and should have found that
he presented a speculative chain of events that would
happen to him. We agree. While the Immigration Judge
found that the applicant has shown a particularized
risk of torture, this finding is based on speculative
assertions by the respondent regarding .
The applicant, who has been in the United States for
many years, claims that killed two of his
cousins in Jamaica. But other than his testimony,
which is not based on first-hand knowledge, there is no
objective corroborating evidence that killed
his relatives or why. Indeed, the grand jury indictment
in California against states he was arrested
on February 12, 2010, on his way to pick up marijuana,
and thus, he would have been incarcerated in the
United States at the time of the cousin’s murder in
2011 (Exh. 6D). When asked how he knows
killed his cousins, he stated that and his
gang members “brag about this stuff” (Tr. at 51-52).
Yet, the affidavits from the applicant’s family make no
mention of (Exh. 6). Nor do the affidavits
from the applicant’s mother, sister, and stepfather
mention when describing threats to kill the
applicant they received in 2021 (Exh. 6B). The
mother’s affidavit states she received phone calls “from
 49
individuals who live in Jamaica threatening to kill
[the applicant] on site should he come home” and that
neighbors reported to her that three masked men
asked about the applicant’s whereabouts (Exh. 6B; Tr.
at 68-69). The applicant’s sister states in her affidavit
that “people” have asked about him and unknown guys
told her the applicant has a green light on him but did
not tell her why (Exh. 6B; Tr. at 68-69). When the
applicant was asked why has any interest in
harming him now and sees him as a threat, the
applicant testified “[t]hat’s the big question” and that
he will expect the applicant to retaliate against
for his cousins’ deaths because that is
the “Jamaican lifestyle” (Tr. at 47-48). Thus, the
applicant’s claims that killed or ordered the
killing of his cousins and is behind the threats his
mother and sister received in 2021 are speculative.
The Immigration Judge also found that country
conditions evidence supports the applicant’s claim
but cited generalized statements in the 2020 State
Department Report regarding government human
rights abuses, fatalities involving government security
forces, allegations of torture of people in police custody,
and insufficient action in addressing abuse and un-
lawful killings by security forces (IJ at 8-9; Exh. 4C).
The Immigration Judge did not explain and did not
cite to any particular evidence of record corroborating
the claim that is an ex-police officer, that he
controls the applicant’s old neighborhood, that he
killed the applicant’s relatives, or that he poses a
particularized risk of harm to the applicant that would
amount to torture. The country conditions evidence
does not mention and does not indicate the
police will acquiesce in torture. In fact, the evidence
the applicant cites in his brief on appeal is either
information about crime and safety for foreign
 50
travelers to Jamaica or evidence indicating that crime
is a significant problem, but the evidence also indicates
that Jamaica has an independent police oversight
body and that efforts are made to address gangs,
corruption, and impunity for police killings (Exh. 6 at
pages 142-52, 158-64). Moreover, the mother’s affidavit
does not demonstrate a likelihood of acquiescence
simply because the police stated it would not
investigate threats from unknown persons against the
applicant who currently is not in Jamaica (Exh. 6B).
The mere existence of a pattern of human rights
violations in a particular country does not constitute a
sufficient ground for finding that a person would more
likely than not be tortured. Nolasco v. Garland, 7 F.4th
180, 191 (4th Cir. 2021).
Thus, we conclude that the respondent’s claim is
based on the stringing together of a series of supposi-
tions and is not supported by sufficient objective
evidence to corroborate his speculative fear of torture
by or that the government will acquiesce in
his torture. Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 350
(BIA 2021); Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. at 917-18. 2

2
The applicant also alleges in his reply brief that the
Immigration Judge did not consider, in the aggregate, the
likelihood of torture because of his status as a criminal deportee
and his long-time residence in the United States (Respondent’s
Reply Br. at 22-24). However, the Immigration Judge found that
the applicant never mentioned that he fears the police directly
(IJ at 7). The applicant states he will be required to register with
the government and wear an ankle monitor and cites evidence
stating that criminal deportees are stigmatized (Exh. 6 at 263-
303, 310¬ 25). However, he has not cited specific evidence that
police or other government officials subject criminal deportees to
extreme mistreatment, intentionally inflict torture on them, or
that he personally faces a risk of torture by the government or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. The evidence
 51
For these reasons, we will reverse the Immigration
Judge’s determination that the applicant has demon-
strated that it is more likely than not that he would be
subjected to torture inflicted by, or at the instigation of
or with the consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness
of a Jamaican public official or other person acting in
an official capacity for purposes of deferral of removal
under the CAT.
Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The Department of Homeland Security’s
appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s order
dated July 27, 2021, granting deferral of removal
under the CAT is vacated, and the applicant is ordered
removed from the United States to Jamaica.

he cites does not mention torture of criminal deportees, but rather

discusses the difficulty criminal deportees have reintegrating into
society and the blame they experience by society and the
government for rising crime rates (Exh. 6). Thus, we find this
claim to be without merit.