FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 02, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14858 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 97- 669- 306 N D I K I N G S L E Y N D I , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN 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 on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ay 2, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: N di K i ngs l e y N di , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C a m e r oon, s e e ks r e vi e w of the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ’ s ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng w i thoutopi ni on the2

i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) or de rof r e m ovabl e a nd de ni a l of a s y l um , w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1 2 3 1 ; 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 . N di a tt e m pt e d t o e nt e rthe U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutva l i d e ntrydoc um e nt s a nd wa s s e rv e d wi th an o t i c e t o ap p e a rc h a r g i n g h i m wi th r e m o v ab i l i tyu n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . N d i r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f f r o m r e mo v a l i n th e f

o rms o f a s y l u m, w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef . A ft era heari ng , the IJconcl ud ed that N di ’ s a l l e ga t i ons w e r e notc r e di bl e a nd de ni e d r e l i e f . T he B I A a f

f i rm e d w i thout o p in io n . N d i n o w p e titio n s th is c o u rt f o rr e v ie w . W h en th e B IA d o es n o t ren d erit s o w n o p in io n , b u t i n stea d ad o p ts th e I J’s opi ni on, w e r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on. D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 388 F . 3d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . L e g a l d e te rm in a tio n s a r e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . I d . a t 8 1 7 . F a c tu a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n s a r e r e v i e we d u n d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , a n d we

“ m us ta f f i rm the [ ] de c i s i on i f

i ti s ‘ s upport e d byr e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e o n th e r e c o r d c o n s i d e r e d a s awh o l e . ’ ” I d . a t8 1 7 - 1 8 . “ To r e v e r s e th e I J ’s f

a c t f in d in g s , w e m u s t f

in d th a t th e r e c o r d n o t o n lys u p p o rts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e ls it.” M e n d o z av . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). W e a l so re vi ew cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s und erthe subst ant i al evi dence t es t . F orgu e v. U . S . A tt orney G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11th C i r.3

2 0 0 5 ) . O n appe a l , N di a r gue s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng w a s not s upport e d by c oge ntr e a s ons , a nd tha tthe I Jf a i l e d t o gi ve the t e s t i m ony a tthe he a r i ng a nd hi s s upport i ng e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntw e i ght . H e c ont e nds tha tthe in c o n s is te n c ie s a n d o m is s io n s d o n o t g o to th e h e a rt o f h is c la im , a n d th u s w o u ld n o t f o rm th e b a s is o f

a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n . T o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f ora s y l um , the pe t i t i one rha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng th a t h e is a“r e f

u g e e ,” w h ic h is d e f

in e d a s : any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n yc o u n tryin w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l yr e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof . . . m e m be r s hi p i n a pa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158( b) ( 1) , 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) ; s e e a l s o F or gue , 401 F . 3d a t1286. T he t est i m o n y o f an ap p l i can t , i f fo u n d t o b e cred i b l e, i s al o n e su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh el i gi bi l i ty f

or as yl um . Y ang v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 41 8 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 2005) . I ndi c a t i ons of

r e l i abl e t e s t i m ony i nc l ude c ons i s t e nc yon di r e c te xa m i na t i on, c ons i s t e nc y w i th the w r i tt e n appl i c a t i on, a nd the abs e nc e of e m be l l i s hm e nta s the appl i c a ntr e pe a t e dl y r e c ount s hi s s t ory . R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 12 55 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); D al i de v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 38 7 F . 3d 13 35 , 13 43 (11th C i r.The REAL ID Act replac es this standard with a totality of the c ircumstance s test, but 1 this new provision does not apply to case s like Ndi’s that were filed be foreMay 11, 2005, the day the REAL

ID Act wa s enacted. REAL ID Act of

2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, §§ 101(a) (3)(B) (iii), (d)(4)(B ), (h) (2); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1) (B )(iii), 1229a( c)(4)(B ). 4 2004) . C r e di bl e t e s t i m ony m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n an appl i c a nt ’ s bur de n of p ro v i n g el i g i b i l i ty fo r asyl u m , b u t“ [t ] h e w eak er an ap p l i can t ’ s t est i m o n y, ho w ever , the great erthe need for corr ob orat i ve evi dence. ” Y ang, 41 8 F . 3d at 1 2 0 1 . C o n v e r s e ly , “a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n a lo n e m a yb e s u f f ic ie n t to supp ortthe deni al of an as yl um appl i ca t i on . ” F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at12 87 . H ow ever ,

“ an adverse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on do es no tal l evi at e the IJ ’ s duty t o con si der othe re vi de nc e pr oduc e d by a n a s y l um appl i c a nt , ” a nd the I Jm us tpr ovi de “s p e c if ic , c o g e n t r e a s o n s ” f

o rh e rc r e d ib ilityf

in d in g . F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . N e v e rth e le s s , w h e n th e I Je n u m e r a te s a n ap p lic a n t’s in c o n s is te n c ie s a n d is s u p p o rte d b y th e r e c o r d , “w e w ill n o t s u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e I Jw ith r e s p e c t to its c r e d ib ilityf in d in g s .” D - M u h u m e d , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 8 1 9 . T h is c o u rt h a s n o t e x p la in e d w h e th e ra d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g s m u s t g o to th e h earto f th e cl ai m rath er th an b ei n g b ased o n m i n o r d i screp an ci es, i ncon si st enci es , or adm i ss i on s. H ow ever , w e nee d n otdeci de thi s i ss ue here 1 because the i ncon si st enci es w er e r el evantand m at er i al t o w hether N di w as i n fac t pers ec ut ed. T he IJfoun d thatthe re cord cont ai ned “ subst ant i al and m at er i al e vi de nt i a ry gaps ” w hi c h r e f l e c t e d a dve r s e l yon N di ’ s c r e di bi l i ty , tha tN di5

pr e s e nt e d f

a l s e t e s t i m ony , a nd “ e xa gge r a t e d a nd e m be l l i s he d” hi s c l a i m a nd the unde r l y i ng f

a c t s . A m ong the m a t e r i a l i nc ons i s t e nc i e s c i t e d bythe I Jw e r e the confl i ct i ng t es t i m on y and do cum ent ary e vi dence w i th regard t o w hen N di j oi ned the S ou thern C am er oo n L ea ders hi p C ou nci l (“ S C N C ”) , w hether he had ever bee n a rr e s t e d - aq u e s t i o n th a tNd i a n s we r e d 3 d i f f e r e n tway s i n th e a i rp o rti n t e rv i e w, a s y l um appl i c a t i on, a nd dur i ng di r e c tt e s t i m ony - a nd N di ne ve rm e nt i one d t o the im m ig r a tio n in s p e c to rth a t h e w a s b e a te n . A ls o , th e I Jw a s n o t ab le to au th e n tic a te N di ’ s doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e , s uc h a s hi s a l l e ge d S C N C c a r d a nd s upport i ng af fi davi t s, and the IJi nd i ca t ed m ore than o nce thatsupp ort i ng do cum ent ary e v id e n c e c o n ta in e d in d ic iao f f r au d . B e c au s e o f

a ll o f th e in c o n s is te n c ie s n o te d b yth e I J , th e I Jd id n o t e rrin fi nd i ng thatN di w as no tcr edi bl e. S ee D al i de, 38 7 F . 3d at13 43 . M oreover, the IJ s pe c i f i c a l l y e num e r a t e d the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a nd c ons i de r e d a l l of the e vi de nc e , a nd th e r e w a s n o r e liab le c o rr o b o r a tin g d o c u m e n ta tio n a v a ilab le . W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly f ound tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng w he r e the as yl um se ekeradds new fa ct s or i nci dent s of abu se t o h i s s t ory a tthe heari ng . S ee F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . N di a l s o a r gue s tha tthe I Jr e l i e d t oo he a vi l yon s t a t e m e nt s he m a de t o the i m m i grat i on offi ce r a tthe ai rportand the as yl um offi ce r duri ng the cr edi bl e f ear in te rv ie w . R e g a r d le s s o f th e w e ig h t to b e g iv e n s u c h in te rv ie w s , in th is c a s e it is6

cl ear thatthe IJbase d h erdeci si on on the re cord as a w ho l e and no tj ustthe arri val a n d c r e d ib le f

e a rin te rv ie w s . B e c au s e th e I Jw e ig h e dth e w h o le r e c o r d , enum er at ed nu m er ou s m at er i al i ncon si st enci es and i rr egul ar i t i es , and fou nd that th e s u p p o rtin g e v id e n c e c o n ta in e d in d ic iao f p o s s ib le f

r au d , th e I Jd id n o t e rrin m a k in g th e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we DE NY Nd i ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.