His motion to appeal an earlier deportation order was denied.
Selwyn Bowen, who at one time argued he was afraid of the sexual advances of a coach, and prosecution from the government should he be returned to Guyana, had his appeal dismissed on February 5 at the Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Bowen, who played for Western Tigers, absconded the same year the country was embarrassed when most of the national team members who had visited the US failed to return, except for two.
While some had legalized their status, a few died in shootings. Their actions had caused many sportsmen to be refused visas to the US.
According to the decision, years after Bowen absconded, in 2001 he was placed in removal proceedings as he had either entered the country without inspection or stayed beyond the time allowed on his visa. When he failed to attend the hearing he was ordered removed from the country in his absence.
However, in 2008 represented by counsel, Bowen moved to reopen his case and argued that he did not receive the notice for the 2002 hearing but that motion was denied by the immigration judge. The judge pointed out that although Bowen sought relief under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), he had failed to file an application.
He appealed that decision and at the hearing presented several reasons for fearing to return to Guyana, among which were that a soccer coach had made sexual advances to him in 1987 in Guyana; the government would prosecute him; the government would torture him because he will be a deportee; and that Guyana lacked medical resources to treat his health problem.
In rejecting these claims by Bowen, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that he had “not demonstrated that the coach targeted him or would seek to target him again, or that the Guyanese authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect him from harm. It was also found that Bowen’s documentary evidence did not establish a pattern or practice of prosecution against deportees or individuals of Afro-Guyanese ethnicity and he did not explain how his medical condition entitled him to remain in the country.
Following his appeal to the higher court it was noted that to qualify for withholding of removal, a person must establish that it is more likely than not that his “life freedom would be threatened in the country [of removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” To meet the standards, the person must show past persecution, which creates a presumption of future persecution, or that it is more likely than not that he will suffer future persecution if removed to the country in question.
The court ruled that Bowen failed to establish any of the above in his arguments as among other things he had no documentary evidence to demonstrate that Guyana has a pattern or practice of prosecuting deportees or those of Afro-Guyanese ethnicity. As a result the appeal was dismissed and his motion for an extension of time to file additional documents was also denied.
