FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DEC 15, 2008

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 2 2 2 8

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A g e n c y N o

. A 9 7

- 1 9 8

- 5 3 9

J O S E P H V I D O M O N T G E R A R D

,

P e t i t i o n e r ,

v e r s u s

U

. S

. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L

,

R e s p o n d e n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

P e t i t i o n f o r R e v i e w o f a D e c i s i o n o f t h e
B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( D e c e m b e r 1 5
, 2 0 0 8 )

B e f o r e B L A C K

, B A R K E T T a n d H U L L

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

J o s e p h V i d o M o n t G e r a r d

, a c i t i z e n o f H a i t i

, p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f t h e

B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) d e c i s i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e I m m i g r a t i o nJ u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) o r d e r d e n y i n g h i m a s y l u m , w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l

, a n d r e l i e f u n d e r

t h e U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s t T o r t u r e ( “ C A T ” )

. T h e B I A a n d t h e I J

d e n i e d M o n t G e r a r d ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n s b a s e d o n a f i n d i n g t h a t h e w a s n o t c r e d i b l e

.

A f t e r r e v i e w , w e d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w

.

O n a p p e a l

, M o n t G e r a r d a r g u e s t h a t t h e I J ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y

d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

. A n a s y l u m a p p l i c a n t h a s 1

t h e b u r d e n t o s h o w , w i t h s p e c i f i c a n d c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e , e i t h e r p a s t p e r s e c u t i o n o r

a “ w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e a r ” o f f u t u r e p e r s e c u t i o n o n a p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d

. F o r g u e v

. U

. S

.

A t t ’ y G e n

. , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d 1 2 8 2

, 1 2 8 6

- 8 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 )

. I f t h e I J f i n d s a n a s y l u m

a p p l i c a n t n o t c r e d i b l e , t h e I J m u s t m a k e a n e x p l i c i t a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y f i n d i n g a n d

o f f e r “ s p e c i f

i c , c o g e n t r e a s o n s ” f

o r t h e f i n d i n g

. I d

. “ I n d i c a t i o n s o f r e l i a b l e

t e s t i m o n y i n c l u d e c o n s i s t e n c y o n d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e w r i t t e n

a p p l i c a t i o n , a n d t h e a b s e n c e o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t s

. ” R u i z v

. U

. S

. A t t ’ y G e n

. , 4 4 0

F

. 3 d 1 2 4 7

, 1 2 5 5 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 6 )

. “ O n c e a n a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y f i n d i n g i s m a d e , 2

Where, a s here , the B I A adopts the I J ’s re asoning , we will re view the I J ’s and the B I A’s 1

decisions. See Al Na

jjar v. Ashcr oft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2001). Credibility
deter minations are r eviewe d under the substantial evidence test, and we will overturn them only
if the re cord c ompels it. Forg ue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2005).

The REAL

I D Act of

2005 amende d the I mmigra tion and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) to 2 permit an a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination based on inconsistencie s that do not go “ to the hear t of the a pplicant’s cla im.” See Pub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(a )(3) , (d)( 4)(C), 119 Stat. 231, 303, 304-05 (c odified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii), 1229a( c)( 4)(C). B eca use Mont Ger ard’ s application wa s filed bef

ore Ma y 11, 2005, the REAL

I D Act’ s chang es do not apply to his
claims. Nonethe less, we ne ed not re solve whethe r adve rse c redibility determinations in preREAL I D Act c ases must g o to the hear t of the cla im because the inconsistencies ide ntified by

2t h e b u r d e n i s o n t h e a p p l i c a n t a l i e n t o s h o w t h a t t h e I J ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y d e c i s i o n w a s

n o t s u p p o r t e d b y ‘ s p e c i f i c , c o g e n t r e a s o n s ’ o r w a s n o t b a s e d o n s u b s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e

. ” F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 8 7

.

T h e I J a n d t h e B I A g a v e s p e c i f i c , c o g e n t r e a s o n s f

o r f i n d i n g M o n t G e r a r d

n o t c r e d i b l e

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y , t h e I J f

o u n d t h a t M o n t G e r a r d ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s v a g u e

a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t r e g a r d i n g ( 1 ) h i s m e m b e r s h i p a n d l e a d e r s h i p i n , a n d t h e n a t u r e o f

,

t h e P L B p a r t y ( w h i c h h e c l a i m e d c a u s e d L a v a l a s t o t a r g e t h i m )

, ( 2 ) a n i n c i d e n t i n

w h i c h a g r o u p p r o t e s t e d a n d t h r e w r o c k s a t h i s h o m e , a n d ( 3 ) t h e i n j u r y h e r e c e i v e d

r u n n i n g a w a y f

r o m h i s L a v a l a s a s s a i l a n t s

. T h e I J a l s o f o u n d M o n t G e r a r d f

a i l e d t o

g i v e a p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n f o r r e m a i n i n g i n P o r t A u P r i n c e a f t e r h e f e l t t h r e a t e n e d a n d

m o v e d h i s f

a m i l y a w a y o r f

o r r e t u r n i n g t o H a i t i a f

t e r s p e n d i n g f

i f t e e n d a y s i n t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s

. T h e s e r e a s o n s f o r d i s c r e d i t i n g M o n t G e r a r d a r e s u p p o r t e d b y

s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e

. F u r t h e r m o r e , M o n t G e r a r d d o e s n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e o t h e r 3

e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d

, a l o n e , c o m p e l s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e w a s p e r s e c u t e d o r h a s a

w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u t u r e p e r s e c u t i o n

. B e c a u s e M o n t G e r a r d f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h

e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r a s y l u m , h e l i k e w i s e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t y f o r w i t h h o l d i n g o f

the I J and the B I A in this case r elate dir ectly to Mont Gerar d’s claims of pe rsec ution.

Be cause we c onclude that the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination is supported by 3

substantial evidence , we do not addr ess Mont Gera rd’s a rg ument that his testimony , taken a s true, e stablished past perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution.

3r e m o v a l

. S e e A l N a j j a r v

. A s h c r o f

t

, 2 5 7 F

. 3 d 1 2 6 2

, 1 2 9 2

- 9 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 1 )

. 4

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

.

We lack jurisdiction to reviewMont Gera rd’s CAT c laim beca

use he did not ra ise it with 4

the B I A. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1), I NA § 242(d) (1); Amay a-A rtunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 2006).

4