## Facts

- Malachy McAllister, a native and citizen of Northern Ireland, became involved with the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) in the early 1980s.
- In 1981, he participated in two INLA-related incidents: (1) acting as an armed lookout during the shooting of a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer, and (2) participating in a conspiracy to shoot and kill an RUC officer.
- He was convicted in Northern Ireland of unlawful and malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and conspiracy to murder, sentenced to seven years, and released early in 1985 for good behavior.
- After release, the family alleged they were targeted by Loyalist paramilitaries and mistreated by the RUC; they left for Canada in 1988, where McAllister’s asylum claim was denied and he was ordered deported.
- The family entered the United States in 1996 as nonimmigrant visitors; removal proceedings began in 1999.
- The immigration judge found Malachy removable and denied him asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, but granted asylum to his wife Sarah and their children.
- The BIA held Malachy removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B) for engaging in “terrorist activities” and denied all relief; in separate proceedings it found Sarah and the children removable for overstaying and granted voluntary departure.
- Sarah died during proceedings; the children sought to file independent asylum applications and to reopen, but the BIA denied reopening as untimely.

## Issues

1. Whether McAllister’s INLA-related conduct constituted “terrorist activity” under the INA, making him removable and barring asylum, withholding, and related relief.
2. Whether the INA terrorism definitions and bars were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to McAllister’s conduct.
3. Whether a “political offense” theory or international-law concepts (including Geneva Convention/combatant arguments) limited application of the INA terrorism bars.
4. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s dispositions involving Sarah and the children, including denial of motions to reopen and late-filed independent asylum claims.

## Decision

- The court denied McAllister’s petition for review, affirming the BIA’s finding that he engaged in “terrorist activity” and was removable and statutorily ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and related relief.
- The court rejected McAllister’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges to the INA terrorism provisions as applied.
- The court rejected arguments that a political-offense concept or international-law framework constrained the INA terrorism bars.
- The court dismissed or denied the other family members’ petitions, concluding that jurisdictional limits and the posture of the record foreclosed review of the BIA’s determinations, including denial of reopening and untimely independent asylum efforts.

## Legal Principles

- INA “terrorist activity” provisions reach violent acts (and conspiracies) involving firearms or other weapons intended to intimidate or coerce or to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, including attacks directed at government police forces.
- The INA terrorism bars may apply to conduct undertaken as part of an organization that engages in terrorist activity even if the organization is not formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
- The INA terrorism definitions are not void for vagueness when the statutory terms plainly cover armed attacks and conspiracies to kill; breadth alone does not establish unconstitutional overbreadth in this immigration context.
- The INA terrorism bars do not incorporate a political-offense exception, and adjudicators are not required to reclassify the conduct under Geneva Convention or combatant/noncombatant frameworks to decide removability and statutory ineligibility.
- Courts’ review of BIA determinations may be limited by jurisdictional constraints, particularly for untimely applications and denials of reopening absent a reviewable legal or constitutional error.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that McAllister’s admitted and convicted INLA-related conduct fell within the INA’s broad definition of “terrorist activity,” making him removable and barring asylum and withholding, rejected constitutional and international-law-based limitations on the terrorism bars, and dismissed or denied the remaining family petitions largely on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds.


McAllister v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2006)