FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT April 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1186 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A ge nc y N o. A 79- 629- 839 MARIE IS MANE PIERRE, Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- (A pr il 28, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Mari e Is m an e Pi er

re , ana tiv e an d c iti ze n of H ai ti, pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the ad opt iona nd a ff

irm an ce by

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( “ BI A ”) of theThe de cision also denied withholdingof re moval and re lief under the United Nations Convention 1 Ag a ins t T or

tur e and Othe r C ru e l, I

nhuma n, or De g ra din gTr e atme nt o r P un ishme nt. B ut, on a pp e a l, Pierre doe s not offer

arguments on these cla ims; and thus, they are abandoned
. S ee S ep u l veda v. U.S. A ttorney Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (e x plaining that a petitioner a bandons an issue by

failingto offer

argument on that issue).

2 decision of the Im

m igration Ju dge (“ IJ”) deny ing asy lum
. No r eversible err or has 1 be en sh own ; we d en y

th e p et it io n. W e re vie wthe de ci sio ns o f the I J and the BI A in thi s c as e. S ee A l N aj j ar v. As h cr o ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n g t h at we re v i ew t h e B IA ’s de ci sio n; b ut “ [i ] nsof

ar a s th e [B IA ] a dopt s th e IJ ’ s r ea soni ng, w e w ill r ev ie wthe IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l” ). A n a lie n m ay

obt ai n a sy lum

if she is a “ re fu ge e, ” that i s, ape rs on unable or
unw ill ing to re tur

n to he r co untry

of na tio na lity

“ be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el lfounded fear of per secution on account of” a pr otected ground , including po litical opi nio n. 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ); 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of

pr ovi ng s ta tut or

y “ re fu ge e” status w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le
ev id en ce. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att orne y Gen., 4 01 F.3d 12 82 , 12 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. Pi er re sou ght a sy lum ba se d onhe r an d he r br oth er ’ s in vol ve m en t i n K onf ed er as y on I nit e D em oka tik ( “ K ID ”) , an op posi tio n party to L av al as : the the nru li ng pa rty in Ha it i. Pi erre all eg edth athe r br ot he r ha d d is ap pe ared aft er t he two atte nde d aK ID m ee tin g; and l at er , L av al as be gan targ et ing he r at the or phana gePierre posits that t h e I J i m p er m i s s ibly relied on the asylum interview notes in findingher 2 incre dible beca

use the notes ne ver w ere admitted into the r ecor d. But the r ecor d clea rly indicates that the notes we re pa

rt of the evidenc e of rec ord. And the I J did not err in consideringPierre’ s prior state me nts g ive n d

ur ingth at in te rv ie w b e c a us e the y we re mate ri a l and

re le va nt t o h e r c la im. Se e 8 C. F .R. § 1 24 0. 7 ( “ [t]he [I J] may re c e ive in e vid e nc e any

or a l or wr itt e n s tate me nt t

hat is materia l and re levant to any issu e i n t h e case previously made by the re spondent . . . duringany investigation, ex amination, hear ing, or trial”). 3 w he re she w orke d. I n de ny ing P ie rr e’ s a sy lum appl ic at ion , the I J m ad e ana dve rs e credibility

determ ination about Pierre, which the BI A a ffirm ed. T he BIAexplained that (1) Pier

re did not am end her asy lum application to include the im portant fact of her sister’ s death at the hands of Lavalas, (2) inconsistencies existed b etwe en he r as y lum

appl ic at ion , a sy lum

int er vie w , a nd h eari ng t es tim ony about w he n sh e first rec eived threatening pho ne calls fr om Lavalas and whether she w as followed after leaving the orphanage when Lavalas m em bers cam e lookin g for her ther e, (3 ) she did

not suf fi ci en tly e xpl ai n th es e im

portant o m iss ion s and i nc onsi ste nc ie s,
an d (4 ) sh e fai le d t o p ro vi de co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e fo r an y pa rt o f he r cl ai m . Pi er re nowc ha lle nge s th e BI A ’ s a ff irm an ce of

the a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n, a rg uin g th at the om iss ion s and i nc onsi ste nc ie s inhe r te sti m ony
w er e ei the r ad equa te ly

e xpl ai ne d or

sim ply unc le ar a nd d id n ot p ro vid e a co ge nt
re as on f or f ind ing he r inc re dib le
. S he a lso a rg ue s th at he r la ck of c or ro bor at ing
ev ide nc e w as e xc use d be ca use he r te sti m ony

w as suf fi ci en tly de ta ile d and
co nsi ste nt. 2An I J must make expli cit cre dibilit y deter minations, see Yang v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 418 F .3d 3 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005); an d t h e I J did so in thi s case . In addition, beca use Pierre ’s asylum application and or al statements made at her hear ing wer e the only evidenc e of pe rsec ution that she offe red, a n adver se cr edibility

d et er m i n at i on would be “suf ficient to support the de nial of [her] asylum application.” F orgue, 401 F .3d at 1287. 4 W e re view an a dverse cre dibil ity determ ination under the subs tantial
ev ide nc e te st; a nd w e w ill not sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t f

or that de te rm inatio n. 3 D -M uhum ed

v. U
. S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 388 F
. 3d 8 14, 818 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ; se e al so Fo rg ue , 401 F
. 3d at 12 87 ( “ O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing is m ad e, the bur de n is on the appl ic an t a lie n to sho wthat the
. . . c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not supp orted by

specific, cogent reasons or wa s not based o n subs tantial evidence.”) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). “ In dic at ion s of r el ia ble te sti m ony

inc lud e
co nsi ste nc y

on d ir ec t e xa m inatio n, c onsi ste nc y w iththe w ri tte n a

ppl ic at ion , a nd the abse nc e of

e m be lli shm en ts. ” Ru iz v. U
. S. A tto rn ey G en . , 440 F
. 3d 1 247, 125 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 6)
. I n a ddi tio n, the w eake r the appl ic an t’ s te sti m ony , the gr eate r the
ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. Yan g, 4 18 F.3d at 1 20 1. T he I J and B IApr ovi de d sp ec if ic , c oge nt r ea sons f

or the c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n, w hic h are sup porte d by sub stanti al e vid en ce . S ee D -M uhum ed , 388 F. 3d at 81 9. Ar ev ie wof P ie rr e’ s st at em en ts i n he r as y lum appl ic at ion , as y lum int er vie w , a nd at the he ar ing r ev ea l i nc onsi ste nc ie s onm at er ia l e le m en ts o f he r cl ai m that sh e an d he r fam ily

suf fe re d po lit ic al pe rs ec uti on i n H ai ti at theHe re , th e B I A a pp lie d th e “ he art

of the c la im” tes t in de te rm ini ngthat th e inc on sis te nc ie s in 4 Pierre’ s testimony

rende red he r incre dible. Whil e we never expressly have a dopted the “he art of the claim” te s t, w e s ti ll c o n c lu d e th at th e B I A ’ s a dv e r s e c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n ati o n is s u

p p o rte d by substantial evidence . Se e Nr ek a v. U.S. Att orney Gen., 408 F .3d 1361, 1369 (11th Cir. 2005) (upholding the denial of asylum because Nre ka fa iled to provide suffic ient corr oboratingevidenc e and explan at i o n to rebut the I J ’s express conc erns a bout cre dibilit y

of his testimony

on “key elements” of the c laim). 5 hands of Lavalas beca

use of her and her brother’ s invo lvem ent in KID
. Pier re 4 te sti fi ed that he r sis te r die d a t the hands of L av al as in Se pte m

be r 2003 , sho rt ly af te r Pi er re f ile d f or a sy lum ; bu t sh e fa ile d to a m en d he r ap pli catio n to r ef le ct thi s crucial f act. While she explained th at she did not know how to am end her ap pli catio n, it

is not ew orthy

that P ie rr e ha d alaw y er

w he n th e IJse t a

de ad lin e fo r
amen d m en t s an ds ub m i s s i o n o f c o rr o b o ra t i n g ev i d en ce . In ad d i t i o n , P i erre ’s t es t i m o n y ab o u twh en s h e f i rs tre ce i v ed t h re at en i n g p h o n e c al l s af t erh erb ro t h er ’s dis ap pe ar an ce a nd whe the r tw o L av al as m em be rs w ho c am e loo kin g f

or he r at the orphanage followed her or whether she escaped fr om them unseen was inc onsi ste nt w ithhe r as y lum appl ic at iona nd i nte rv ie w . T he se om iss ion s and inconsi stencies are about key elem ents of Pierr e’ s claim that Lavalas wa s pe rs ec uti ng h er

a nd h er f am ily ba se d onhe r br oth er ’ s part ic ipatio n inK ID , a nd t h e r e f o r e , c a s td o ub to n h e r

e n t i r e c l a i m. In the light of Pierre’ s weak testim ony , the I J and BIAcorre ctly noted that she was r equired to -- but did no t -- provide corroborating evidence to supp ort herEven if Pierr e we re c redible, the BIA is due to be affirmed: it rested on the alternative g round 5 that Pie rr e ha d no t de mon str ate d a n o bje c tiv e ly

re a so na ble fe ar o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on

up on re tur n to Haiti. Substantial evidence sup p o rt s t h i s deter mination as Pierre w as, at most, a low-le vel pa rt ic ipa nt i n K I D a

nd L ava la s is no lon g e r i n p ow e r i n H a iti
. B e low , Pi e rr e sty

le d h e r m oti on

a s o ne “ to s ub mit

a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e .” We c on str ue it a s a 6 motion to reopen bec ause it soug ht to have the I J consider e vidence not previously prese nted. See Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1301 (stating that where a motion to remand “ seeks to introduce evidenc e that has n ot p re vio us ly

be e n p re se nte d, it i s g e ne ra lly tr e ate d a s a

mot ion to r e op e n und e r [8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(c) ]”). 6 cl ai m . S ee Y an g, 418 F
. 3d at 12 01. P ie rr e fa ile d to pr ovi de he r sis te r’ s de ath
ce rt if ic at e, doc um en ta tio n of

he r inv olv em en t i n K ID , or apol ic e re port i ndi catin g that her brother w as m issin g. P ierre explained that sh e had these item s but th at they we re stolen from

her car in Februar

y 2005
. Pierr e subm itted a police report docum enting th is theft; but, the police report did not list item s relating to her pendin g im

m igration proceedings as m issin g. A nd even still , the thef t occurred
ov er a year aft er t he de ad li ne set by the IJ f orsu bm it ti ng co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e. A cc or din gly , nothin g inthe r ec or d c om pe ls u s to sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t onthe credibility

issue. 5 W e br ie fl y

a ddr es s P ie rr e’ s c la im

that the BI A abuse d it s di sc re tio n in deny ing her m otion to reopen because the evidence she sought to subm it bore 6 dir ec tly on h er c re dib ili ty . W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s de nia l of am oti on t o r eo pe n f

or an abuse of discretion; and th e BI A’ s discretion is “ quite broad.” Gbay a v. U. S. Attorney Ge n., 342 F.3d 1219 , 1220 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation om itted).7

W e co nc lud e that no abuse oc curr ed he re be ca

use thr ee of

the doc um en ts that P ie rr e w ish ed

the I J to c onsi de r -- apr eg nanc y c er tif ic at ionle tte r, m ar

ri ag e certific ate, and a 2005 Cou ntry Report about condit ions in Ha iti -- w ere uni m portant t o he r cl ai m

a nd d id n ot b ear on h er

c re dib ili ty . T he r em ai nin g it em s, inc lud ing he r sis te r’ s de ath c er tif ic at e, sho uld

ha ve be enf

ile d be fo re the a sy lum hearing. A nd no thing in the record evidences that these item s wer e unavailable at th atti m e. PETITION DENIED.