The Honor able He nry R. W ilhoit, J r., Senior United S t at es District J udg e for the Easter

n * District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0502n.06 No. 09-3709 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MOSHEN SAL EH AYY AD, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY G ENERAL , Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM T H E B O A RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: GUY and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and WI L HOI T, District J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Petitioner Moshen Saleh Ay y ad see ks review

of an or der of

th e Bo ar d o f I mmigration Ap pe a ls ( “ B I A” ) a ff

ir min g an immig ra

tio n ju dg e ’s (“ I J”) de nia l of his c la ims fo r a sylum , withholdin g o f removal, and protec tion under the United N ations Convention Aga inst Torture (“CAT” ). F or the reasons that follow, we affirm the BIA’s decision and deny Ay y ad’s pe tition for revie w. I. Ay y ad, a Pale stinian born in Ramallah, I srae l, was admitted to the United States on May 17, 2004, pursuant to a tempor ary non-immigra nt visitor visa. Soon after his visa expi red, A y

y ad filedNo. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

Ay y ad testified to the f

ollowing e vents: I n 1987, Ay y ad par ticipated in the F irst I ntifada, 1 a P alestinian uprisi ng which lasted a pproxi mately

five y ear s. Duringthis ti me, he thre w stones at I s r a e li s o ld ie r s an d

w a s ar r e s te d f o u r ti me s , s h o t t

w ic e , an d im p r is o n e d f o r s ixt e e nmo n th s . He joined th e Pa le s ti n ia

n Y o u th M o v e me n t ( “ PY M ” ) d u r in g th e Se c o n d I n ti f

a d a in 2 0 0 0 , w h e r e he trained a nd rec ruited loca l y ouths to throw stone s at I srae li soldiers. He later left the PYM (without inciden t) w h e nh is s u

p e r v is o r a s k e d h im to tr a in me mb e r s to u s e w e a

p o n s . I s r a e li inte lligenc e a pp ro a c he d A y

y a d in 20 03 fo r i nf

or matio n a bo ut t he PYM . H e re fu se d to c oo pe rate. Aft er this encounte r, borde r ag ents blocked A y y ad fr om pa ssing cer

tain secur ity chec k-points. I n Marc h 2004, Ay y ad’s f riend de livered a letter from the PYM or deringAy y ad to re turn to the org anization. After he re fu se d to re -j oin , A y

y a d w a s p re se nt i n a

ba rb e rs ho p wh en gunfi re sh a tte re d th e sh op ’s g la ss door, and a

bomb expl oded nea

r his home. Following these incidents, Ay y ad decided to l eave I srae l for the U nited States. Once he ar rived in Amer ica, Ay

y ad’s f ather info rm ed h i m t hat he thoug ht Hamas w as trying to kill him. - 2 - an application for asylum and withholding of remova l. He was g rante d an asylum inter view, but he failed to attend. There afte r, the De partment of H omeland Secur ity (“D HS”) ser

ved him with a notice to appea r (“ NTA” ), cha

rg ing him with re movability under se ction 237(a) (1)( B) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( B) . Ay y ad admitted the f

actua l a lleg ations in his NTA , conce ded his remova

b il it y a s c h arg ed, and, thr oug h counsel, filed a n amende d application for asylum and withholding of

remova l based on his Palestinian ethnicity and political opinion, as well as f or protec tion under the CAT. On September

13, 2007, an I J conducte d a hea ring on the merits of Ay

y ad’s c laims for re lief. Ay y a d a sse rt e d th at be fo re he c ame to t he Un ite d St a te s, I sr a e li a uth or iti e s h a d p e rs e c ute d h im beca use of his Palestinian ethnicity , and, if forc ed to return, he would encounte r per secution fr om bo th I sr a e li a

nd Pa le sti nia

n in te lli g e nc e of

fi c ia ls, a s w e ll a s H a ma s, a Pa le sti nia

n I sla mic org anization. 1No. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

- 3 - Duringhis cross-e x amination, Ay y ad admitted that: (1) he was no long er “ wanted” by I srae li intelli g ence ; (2) Palestinian intellige nce w as no long er lookingfor him; (3) even if Palestinian int e lli g e nc e were lo okingfo r h im i n Pa le sti ne , it wa s b a se d o n h is “ ru de [ne ss]” to o ne of the ir “lea der[ s]” in April 2004; and (4) he w as unable to provide a le tter fr om his father ve rifying the Hamas thre at bec ause he only communicated w ith his father ove r the tele phone. I mme diate ly fo llo wi ng the he ari ng , the I J e nte re d a n o ra l de c isi on

de nyingAy

y a d’ s r e qu e sts fo r a s y l u m , wi t h h o l d i n g o f r em o v a l , a n d C A T p ro t ec t i o n . T h e IJ fo u n d t h at Ay y adwa s , i nl ar ge p art , n o ta c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s b e c a

u s e h e h a d

e x a g g e r a t e d

c e rt a i n c r i t i c a l e v e n t s d

u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y,

as e v id e n c e d

b y h is a dmi s s io n s d

u r in g c r o s s - e xami n a ti o n , a s w e ll a s c e rta in in c o n s is te n cies contained in his orig inal and ame nded asy lum applications. On May 27, 2009, the B I A dismissed A y y ad’s appea l. Despite a cce pting the c redibility of his testimony , the B I A ruled that he had f ailed to e stablish a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution from: (1) I srae li authorities beca use he admitted that I srae li intelli g ence was no long er lookingfor him; (2) Palestinian authorities bec ause his rude ness to a Palestinian off icer was not a pr otected g ro un d u po n w hic h h e c ou ld s e e k r e lie f; and (3 ) H a ma s b e c a

us e his fe ar was bas ed so le ly on his fathe r’s stateme nts, which rema ined uncor roborated. Fina lly , the B I A concluded t hat the letter from PYM was insufficie nt to establish his past persecution. Ay y ad timely

filed the pe nding pe tition for review

.No. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

- 4 - II. Ay y ad ar g ues that we should vacate the B I A’s denia l of his r equests for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and CAT prote ction, rema nd for f urther pr ocee dings, and stay his de portation. “Where t h e BI A reviews the immigration judge’ s decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rather than summarily

aff irming the immigrati o n j u d ge’ s decision, we r eview the BIA’s dec ision as the final ag ency deter mination. To the extent the BIA adopted the immig ration judg e’s r easoning , howeve r, this Court also reviews the immigr ation judge ’s dec ision.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F .3 d 4 29 , 4 35 (6 th Cir. 2009) (interna l citation omitt ed). B eca use the B I A ana ly

zed Ay y ad’s c laims on the assumption that his testimony

was c redible, w e will do so as well. See B onilla-Morales v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010). We reviewquestions o f l aw de novo and fa ctual finding s under the “ substantial-evidenc e standard.” Kha lil i , 557 F.3d at 435. Under this test, fac tual finding s must be sustained if they are “supported by rea sonable, subst antial, and probative evide nce on the rec ord consider ed as a whole.” I NS v . E li a s - Za c arias , 5 0 2 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). The finding s “ar e conc lusive unless any rea sonable adjudicator would be compe lled to c on c lud e to the c on tr ary [.]” 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d)

. I n oth e r wo rd s, “ [w]e c ann ot r e ve rs e such finding s s i m p l y b ecause we would have de cided them diff ere ntly .” Kha lil i , 557 F.3d at 435. An alien seeking asylum must establish that he is a “re fug ee,” which is define d as one w ho is “unable or

unwilling to re turn to” his country “bec ause of

perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of perse cution on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , memb er s h i p i n a par ticular socia l gr oup, orNo. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

- 5 - political opinion[ .]” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B )(i) & 110 1 (a )( 4 2 )(A) . “A we ll-founded f ear of perse cution . . . has both a subjec tive and an obje ctive compone nt: a n [applicant] m ust actually fea r that he will be per secute d upon return to his country , and he must present evide nce e stablishing an ‘objec tive situation’ under whic h his fear can be deeme d rea sonable.” Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). To meet this require ment, the applica nt need not “show that he proba

bly will be perse cuted if he is de ported; ‘one can c erta inly have a well-founde d fea

r of

an eve nt happeningwhen ther e is less than a 50% chanc e of the occur renc e takingplace .’” Id. at 950-51 (c itations omitted). I f t he applicant establishes past perse cution, it is presumed that his life or fr eedom will be thre atene d in the future. 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(b)(1) (i). To qu a lif y fo r w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, a

n a pp li cant mu st d e mon str a te “ a c le ar p ro ba

bil ity that [hi s] l ife or f

ree dom would be threatened in [ the] country [t o which he w ould be re moved] on

acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion.” Ab ay v . A sh c ro ft , 368 F.3d 634, 637 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Beca use this standard is more string ent than the s tandar d applicable to asylum claims, an applicant who fa ils to establish t hat he is a “ ref ug ee” elig ible for a sy lum will necessar ily fail to qualify

for withholding of re moval. Id. Un de r t he CA T, re mov a l must be wi thh e ld if “ it i s mo re lik e ly tha n n ot t hat [th e a pp lic ant] would be tortured if remove d to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2). Unlike asylum and withholding of r emoval, no prote cted- g round nexus is require d to obta in r elief unde r the CAT. Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 751 ( 6th Cir. 2006).No. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

Although it is possible for a petitioner to rec eive a

discretionar

y g rant of asylum based upon 2 past perse cution alone, he must make a “ minimum showing of atroc ity [.] ” Neli, 85 F. App’ x at 438 (i nte rn a l quot a tio n mar

ks and c itatio n o mitte d) ; se e, e .g ., Bu c ur v . I NS , 109 F.3d 399, 405 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (inter

nal citation omitted) (holding that the g rantingof asylum on the basis of past per secution - 6 - III

. As a pre liminary

matter, we need not a ddress Ay y ad’s a rguments challeng ing th e I J ’s

cre dibilit y d et erm i n at i o n s b ec au s e t h e B I A a cc ep t edt h e c re d i b i l i t y o f h i s t es t i m o n y

wh en i tre v i ew ed his claims. See B onilla-Morales , 607 F.3d at 1136. I n ad d i t ion, he has a bandoned his c laim for protec tion unde r the CAT. See Asher v. Unarc o Material Handling, Inc. , 596 F.3d 313, 321 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (inter

nal quotation mark s an d ci tation omitt ed) ( “[I ]t is a settled appe llate rule that issues adver ted to in a perfunctor

y manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived.” ). Ay y ad asse rts that the B I A er re d in concluding that he fa iled to satisfy his burden of establishing pa st persec ution by I srae li authorities based on his Palesti n i an ethnicity . I ndeed, a n applicant who sa t i s fi es h is burden of e stablishing past pe rsec ution is presumed to have a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution. See8 C. F .R. § 20 8. 16 (b )( 1) (i ). Ay y a d argue s that his fo ur

arr e sts , pe ri od of imp ri so nme nt, g un sh ot i nju ri e s, and pr ob le ms c ro ssi ngthe bo rd e r s uf fi c ie ntl y e sta bli shhis past perse cution. As the B I A noted in its opinion, however, Ay y ad ef fec tively “re jected his c laimed fea r of the I srae li authorities” during his cross-e x amination, “testifying that he did not think that the I s r a e li a u th o r it ie s o r inte ll ig e n c e w e r e lo o k in g f o r h im

. ” T h u s , e v id e n c e o f an y p a s t e p is o d e s of perse cution was of limited re levanc e bec ause A y y ad admitted that h e d id not fear any future pe rs e c uti on by the I sr a e li g ov e rnme nt. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)( 1)(i)( A) (pr esumption created by 2No. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

alone is to be re ser v ed fo r “the case of the Ge rman Jews, the victims of the Chinese ‘Cultural Revolution,’ survivors of the Cambodian g enocide , and a few other such extreme case s”). Ay y ad has made no such showinghere

. - 7 - pa st p e rs e c uti on

re butte d w he n c ha

ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s d emo ns tr ate s a pp lic ant “ no lon g e r h a s a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution”). Ba sed on Ay y ad’s testimony and the rec ord evidenc e as a whole, Ay y ad did not establish a we ll-founded f ear of the I srae li authorities based on pa st persec ution. Moreove r, Ay

y ad admitted that his arr ests, beating s, and period of imprisonment we re the direc t conseque nce of

his throwing r ocks at I srae li soldiers. Although there is no rec ord evide nce that Ay y ad’s r ock-throw ing w as illeg al, it does sug g est that I srae li authorities may have ha d a differ ent motivation to arrest, beat, and imprison him, separate and a part fr om his P alestinian ethnicity

. See Bonilla-Morales , 6 0 7 F. 3 d at 1 1 3 8 (q u o t i n g Delgado-O rtiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of indiscriminate violenc e, unless they are single d out on acc ount of a prote cted g round.”)

. Ay y ad also a sserts that the B I A er red in c oncluding that he fa iled to establish a we ll-founded fe ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on

fr om Pa le sti nia

n a uth or iti e s be c a

us e of his po lit ic a l op ini on . O n a pp e a l, Ay y ad asse rts that he is fea

rful of Pale stinian intelli g ence beca use it is operatingunder the mistaken belief that he is c ooperating with I srae li intelli g ence . Howeve r, duringcross-e x amination, Ay y ad admitted that Palestinian intelligenc e wa s not looking for him. He testified further that, even if

they

wer e trying to locate him, their motivation li kely stemmed from his ru d e b eh av i o r towar d a Palestinian officia l in early April 2004. I t is well-established that Ay y ad’s f ear of future perse cution

mus t be ba se d on a statut or ily pr ote c te d g ro un d, e ith e r his “ ra c e , re lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hipNo. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

- 8 - in a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 31 (b) (3) (A ); see, e .g. , BonillaMorales , 607 F.3d at 1137. Ay y ad did not provide any specific testimony about the incident, other th an h is b la

n k e t a s s e rti o n th a t h is b e h a v io r w a s r u d e . T h u s , h e h a s f

a il e d to p r o v id e persua sive

e vid e nc e of

a c a us a l conne c tio n; that is, co nv inc ing e vid e nc e that any po te nti a l ha rm tha t ma y re su lt f r o m h i s r

u d e c o m m e n to r

c o n d u c tw o u l d

b e p r e m i s e d

u p o nh i s r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, membership in a

particula r social g roup, or political opinion. Bonilla-Morales , 607 F.3d at 1137. We also ag ree with the BIA’s rulingthat PYM’s attempt to re- rec ruit Ay y ad in Marc h 2004 is insufficient to establish past perse cution. Ay y ad lef t the P YM in 2002 without incident. W hen he re fused to re -join, he wa s neither thre atene d nor har med. The only

evidenc e sug g esting any possible backla sh are the barbershop gunfir e and bomb explos ion incidents. Howeve r, we note that Ay y ad’s testimony

reg ardingthese e vents “does not c ompel the conc lusion that [ Ay y ad’s] situation up on [his ] re tur

n to [I sr a e l] wi ll b e any

dif fe re nt fr om t

he da ng e rs fa c e d b y

oth e r c iti zen s” liv ingin I srae l’s West B ank. Y

usif v. Holder , 361 F. App’ x 667, 671 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) ( internal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Finally , Ay

y ad challenge s the BIA’s rulingthat he does not have a w ell-founde d fea r of futur e pe rs e c uti on

fr om H ama s b e c a

us e he fa ile d to pro vid e su ff ic ie nt co rr ob or a tin g e vid e nc e of his f a th e r ’ s c la im

th a t H ama s w a s tr

yin g to k il l h im

. Wh e r e it is r e a s o n a

b le to e xp e c t c o r

r o b o r ating evidenc e, and a

n applicant ha s failed to provide such evide nce, his c laim may be denie d for f

ailure to me et his bur den of proof

. Do ro sh v . A sh c ro

ft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Ay y ad testified that he c ou ld n ot o bta in a

le tte r o r s tate me nt ve ri fy

ing the Ha

ma s thre at be c a

us e he on ly

sp e a ks wi thNo. 09-3709

Ay y ad v . H old e r

Be cause Ay

y ad has failed to establish that he is a “ ref ug ee” elig ible for a sy lum, he 3 nece ssarily

fails to qualify

for withholding of re moval. See Abay , 368 F.3d at 637.

- 9 - his father over the telephone. A y y ad’s testimony

confirms that he is capa

ble of re achinghis father in I srae l, y et he f

ailed to e x plain why he did not ask his f ather for a written statement substantiating his c la ims

. Mo re ov e r, the on ly re c or d ev ide nc e of a Ha ma s- ba se d thr e a t is his fa the r’ s st a te me nt, which wa s made more than six y ear s ag o when Ay y ad first a rrived in Am er ica. Ac cording ly , we ag ree with the BIA that corr oborative evidenc e of the Hamas threat c ould be rea sonably expected, and that Ay

y ad’s e x planation for its abse nce w as inade quate. Ay y ad has f ailed to establish past p er s ecution or a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution on

acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion. See 8 U.S. C

. § § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1) (B ) & 1101(a) (42)( A). Simply put, the rec ord in this case doe s not

c omp e l a c on tr ary re su lt. 3 I V. For these re asons, we a ffirm the B I A’s dec ision and deny Ay y ad’s pe tition for review

.