[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 60 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. A0 88 -7 19 -1 62 MIN J UN JIANG, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 6, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 1 of 9Mi n J unJi an g, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C hi na , pet it io ns for rev ie w (with t he as si st an ce o f co un se l) t he ord er b y th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) th at affi rm edth e d eci si on of t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”). The de ci si onde ni ed as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Aga in stTortur e an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we d en y th e p et it io n. 1 W e rev ie w th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s d eci si on s i n t hi s ca se be cau se th e BIA ag reedwith m

uc h o f th e IJ ’s reas on in g. Se e Kaze mzad ehv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 77 F.3 d 1 34 1, 1 35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwhen th e BIA ag rees with t he IJ ’s fin di ng s, we re vi ew bo th de ci si on s) . W e rev ie w leg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo . Id . Andwe rev ie w factde te rm in at io ns un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al subs tant ia l ev id en ce t es t” wher eb y

we “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s ‘supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .’ ” Ade fem i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (en ba nc ). W e “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e . . . de ci si on an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on ”; an d we m ay

On appe al, J iangoffe rs no argument on the denial of CAT relief

; theref ore, this claim is 1 abandone d. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (explaining that a

petitioner aba

ndons an issue by

failingto offer

argument on that issue). 2 Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 2 of 9rev ers e th e ag en cy ’s factde te rm in at io n “ on ly whe n t he reco rdco m pe ls a rev ers al .” Id . at 1 02 7. An al ie n m ay

ob ta in asylum

if s he is a “ refu ge e,” tha t i s, a p ers onun ab le or un wil li ng to return t o h er co un try of n at io na li ty “be cau se of p ers ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti onon acco un t o f” a p ro te ct edgro un d, i nc lu di ng po li ti cal op in io n. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A); 11 58 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 ). The as y lu m ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g s ta tu to ry “ refu ge e” s ta tu s wi thsp eci fic an d cred ib le ev id en ce. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 12 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Ji an g s ou gh t as y lu m

ba se d o n h er fea r of

pe rs ecu ti on for

vi ol at in g C hi na ’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy . In h er wri tt enasylum ap pl ic at io n, J ia ng , who was b orn i n 19 90 , reco un te d t ha t s he m ethe r bo y fri en d i n F eb ru ary 20 06 . In Se pt em be r 20 06 , Ji an g d is co ve redth atsh e was pre gn an t; sh e b ecame fearfu l tha t g ov ern m en t of fic ia ls inhe r ho m et own inFu jianPro vi nc e wou lddi sc ov er h er p reg na nc y an d fo rce h er t o u nd erg o a n abo rti on an d s te ril iz at io n s ur ge ry be cau se sh e was un de r th e le ga l ag e fo r m arri ag e an d b irt h. J ia ng an d h er b oyfrien d re nt edanap art m en t in a di ffer en t v il la ge inanatt em ptto co nc eal he r pr eg na nc y ; b utth e lo cal co m m it te e in he r ho m e v il la ge be cam e su sp ic io us an d b eg anvi si ti ng he r pa ren ts ’ ho us e, de m an di ng th atJi an g re tu rnho m e fo r a p reg na nc y ex am in at io n. 3 Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 3 of 9Fo ll owi ng th e b irt h o f he r so n i n M ay 20 07 , Ji an g d es cri be d t ha t l oc al go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s co nt in ue d t o v is ithe r pa ren ts ’ ho m e to in qu ire ab ou t h er whe reab ou ts . Ji an g s ta te d t ha t s he an d h er b oyfrien d c on ti nu edto li ve infearfor th e fi rs t two years o f th ei r so n’s l ife , as t he y rem ai ne d u nd er the leg al ag e fo r m arri ag e an d wer e worrie d t ha t the y wou ldbe tar ge ts forfin es or f or ced st eri li zat io n. The IJ c on cl ud edth atJi an g was no t cr ed ib le , bas in g t he de te rm in at io n o n in co ns is te nc es be twee n J ia ng ’s asylum ap pl ic at io n, h er t es ti m on y at h er re m ov al he ari ng , anda supp orti ng let te r fro m he r fat he r. Fir st , Ji an g h adbe enun ab le to ex pl ai n d is crep an ci es ab ou t h ow an d wh enlo cal go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s d is co ve red he r pr eg na nc y . At he r rem ov al he ari ng , Ji an g t es ti fie d t ha t au th or it ie s wer e al ert ed to he r pr eg nanc y

inDecem

be r 20 06 . But , inhe r as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, s he fai le d t o m en ti on th atso m eo ne rep orte d h er p reg na nc y to th e au th or it ie s, an d h er fa th er’s le tt er n ot edth atfam il y

pl an ni ng off

ic ia ls on ly became int eres te d i n J ia ng inMay 20 07 , aft er s he ga ve bi rth to he r so n. Th e IJst at edth atth e se co nd , andm or e se rio us , in co ns is te nc y

was o n J ia ng ’s li vi ng si tu at io n dur in g a ndaft er h er pr eg na nc y . In J ia ng ’s asylum ap pl ic at io n, s he reco un te d t ha t s he li ve d wi th he r bo y fri en d fr om

Marc h 2 00 6 t o Oct ob er 2 00 7 a ndth enli ve d i n c om pa ny ho us in g un ti l s he lef

t Ch in a in Feb ru ary 20 09 . By co nt ras t, h er fath er’s l et te r in di cat edth at 4 Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 4 of 9Ji an g fl edhe r paren ts ’ ho m e to hi de ina rel at iv e’s ho us e o nl y aft er s he ha d g iv en bi rth . In h er t es ti m on y , th ere was no m en ti on of J ia ng or h er b oyfrien d l iv in g wi th a rel at iv e; itwas o nl y

aft er the IJ que st io ne d J ia ng ab ou t the m en ti onof arel at iv e in he r fat he r’s le tt er tha t J ia ng di d o ffer th atsh e li ve d wi th a di st an t re la ti ve kn own as “ Po -p o.” The IJ st at edth atwho Ji an g l iv edwith andwher e sh e li ve d were n ot“real ly m at eri al to th e h eartof t he cas e,” b utth atth e in co ns is te nc ie s d id cal l i nt o que st io n h er o ve ral l cr ed ib il it y . The IJ a ls o c on cl ud edth atJi an g h adno t cr ed ib ly dem on st rat eda well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . There was n o m en ti on inth e U.S. Dep artm en t o f St at e’s 20 07 Ch in a Pro fil e o f Asylum Cla im s an d C ou nt ry Co nd it io ns (“ 20 07 Co un try Profi le ”), o r el se whe re, tha t wo m en-- und er the leg al ag e o f m arri ag e who ha d c hi ldren-- were s ub ject t o fo rcedst eri li zat io n o r th at su cha pr oc edur e wou ldoc cur m or e th anth ree years a fte r th e wom anha d g iv en bi rth . Ins te ad , corres po nd en ce fr om Fu jianPro vi nc e in di cat edth atth ere h adbe en no cas es of f

or cedst eri li zat io n i n t he las t t eny ears . Ji an g app eal edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he BIA an d fi le d asupp le m en ta ry m ot io n t o re op enan d re m an d h er ca se forco ns id erat io n o f ad di ti on al ev id en ce. The BIA ag reedwith t he IJ’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a ndfurth er d en ie d he r m ot io n t o re m an d. 5

Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 5 of 9On ap pe al , Ji an g arg ue s t ha t the IJ’s an d B IA’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty

de te rm in at io n was no t s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d was ba se d o n m in or in co ns is te nc ie s. An ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a lo ne m ay be su ffi ci en t t o 2 supp ort the de ni al of a sylum rel ie f. For gu e, 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Bu t “ anadve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n d oe s n otall ev ia te th e IJ ’s du ty to co ns id er o th er ev id en ce pr oduc edby an as y lu m

ap pl ic an t.” Id . The IJ a ndBIA p ro vi de d “ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s” forth e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n, wh ic h i s s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See id . Nothi ng inth e reco rdco m

pe ls us to subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t o n t hi s i ss ue . Ji an g fa il edto expl ai n ad equa te ly the in co ns is te nc es on when au th or it ie s b ecame aware o f he r pr eg na nc y an d t o e xp la in th e co nf

li ct in g a ndun res ol ve d a cco un ts of h er l iv in g s itua ti on . To th e ex te ntth atJi an g a rg ue s t ha t the adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was ba se d o n di sc rep an ci es th atdi d “ no t g o t o t he he artof the is su e,” s he ig no res th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory st an da rd , whi chpe rm it s a t rie r of factto ba se it s cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n on “ an y in accu raci es or f

al se ho od s . . . witho utreg ardto whet he r [the y ] go [] to the

J iangalso alleg es that the B IA er red a s a matter of

law by failingto addre ss her 2 contention that her

ref ere nce to “ Po-po” as both her grandmother

and as a distant relative wa s not inconsistent. The B IA did not base its adver se cr edibility deter mination on this issue, howeve r. Even if Jiang’ s expl anation for this inconsist ency

was re asonable , the B IA was not re quired to acc ept or a ddress it. See Ade femi, 386 F .3d at 1027 (statingthat “the mer e fa ct that the re cord may support a contr ary

conclusion is not enough to justi fy a re versa l of the administrative finding s”). 6

Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 6 of 9he artof t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m .” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Ev enon e

in co ns is te nc y , onrel at iv el y m in orde ta il s, m ay

jus ti fy anadve rs e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n. Se e Xiav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 6 08 F.3d12 33 , 12 40 -4 1 (1 1th C ir. 20 10 ) (co nc lu di ng th atanadve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was supp orte d wh ere th e ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y “ in cl ud edat l eas t o ne in te rn al co ns is te nc y (ho w ol d s he was whensh e h adth e ab orti on ) an d o ne om is si on (id en ti fy in g d at a o n t he ab orti on op erat io ns cert ifi cat e)”) . Inth e li gh t o f th e 2 00 7 C ou nt ry Pro fil e, onwhi chth e BIA was en ti tl edto rel y , andof t he lac k o f rec or d e vi de nc e to co rro bo rat e Ji an g’s t es ti m on y , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d en ia l o f Ji an g’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. See

3 Reyes-Sa nc he z v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 69 F.3d12 39 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (the BIA m ay “ rel y he av il y ” o n re po rts pre pa redby the Sta te Depa rtment t ha t h av e b een adm it te d i nt o t he reco rd , as s uc h re po rts are the m os t ap pr op ria te an d p erh ap s t he be stres ou rce f

orob ta in in g i nf

orm at io n o n p ol it ic al si tu at io ns ab ro ad ). Ji an g a ls o a rg ue s tha t the BIA erre d b y de nyin g h er m ot io n t o re m an d, th ro ug h wh ic h s he so ug htto subm itad di ti on al ev id en ce tha t ca ll edin to qu es ti on th e rel iabi li ty of th e 2 00 7 C ou nt ry Pro fil e. By

de nyin g h er m ot io n, J iang Be cause J ianghas fa iled to establish her e ligibility for a sylum, she has nec essarily failed 3 to meet the higher standa rd for withholding of r emoval. See D jonda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 514 F .3d 1168, 1177 (11th Cir. 2008). 7

Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 7 of 9m ai nt ai ns th atth e BIA i gn or edco un te rv ai li ng ev id en ce i n t he reco rdth atsh e

arg ue s es tabl is he d h er wel l-f ou nd edfear o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . A m ot io n t o re m an d t ha t s eek s t o i ntro du ce ev id en ce tha t h as no t p rev io us ly be enpre se nt edis ge ne ral ly treat edas am ot io n t o re op en . 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(4 ); Ch acku v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 5 55 F.3d12 81 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Ch acku, 5 55 F.3d at12 86 . A m ot io n t o re op enm us t “ st at e th e n ew fact s tha t wi ll be pro ve n a t a he ari ng to be he ldif t he m ot io n i s g ran te d a ndsh al l b e supp orte d b y affi da vi ts or ot he r ev id en ti ary m at eri al . . . . A m ot io n t o re op enpro ceed in gs sh al l n otbe gr an te d u nl es s i t ap pe ars to th e Bo ardth atev id en ce s ou gh t t o b e o ffer edis m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredor p res en te d a t th e fo rm er h eari ng [.]” 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(1 ). “ New” ev id en ce i s tha t wh ic h was no t av ai labl e atth e al ie n’s “ fo rm er h eari ng .” Bal og un v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 25 F.3 d 1 35 6, 1 36 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . To pr ov e th atth e n ew ev id en ce i s al so m at eri al , th e al ie n b ears a “ he av y

bu rd en ,” as sh e m

us t es tabl is h t ha t, i f th e p ro ceed in gs were re op en ed , th e n ew ev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y ch an ge th e res ul t i n the cas e. Ali v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 43 F.3d80 4, 8 13 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Ji an g’s s up po rti ng ev id en ce t o h er m ot io n t o re m an d -- sp eci fic al ly the Sta te Dep artm en t cabl es sh e rec ei ve d i n re sp on se to a Free do m of I nf orm at io n Act 8 Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 8 of 9reque st-- fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth e o ut co m e o f he r cas e wou ldhave be en

di ffer en t i f su chev id en ce h adbe enco ns id eredby the IJ. Se e id . The cabl es were in factco ns is te ntwith t he 20 07 Co un try Profi le : b ot h re po rte d t ha t, wh il e Ch in a’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy

co nt ai ne d c oe rci ve ele m en ts su chas f in es an d p erm it s, no th in g i nd ic at es th atfor cedab orti on or s te ril iz at io n was a co m m on or r ou ti ne pr act ic e inFu

jianPro vi nc e. Inad di ti on , no ne of t he do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce pr ov id edby Jian g i n s up po rt o f he r m ot io n t o re m an d i nd ic at edth atwom enwho ga ve bi rth when th ey

were u nd er the leg al m arri ag e ag e wou ldbe subjec t t o in vo lu nt ary st eri li zat io n. Be cau se Ji an g o ffer edno ev id en ce tha t was bo th m at eri al an d p rev io us ly una va il ab le , th e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g h er m ot io n t o re m an d. PETITION DENIED.

9 Case: 11-13600 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 9 of 9