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: 09a0623n.06 No. 08-3895 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT P encentius Vanderkley, et al., P e ti ti one r s,

v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE BOA R D O F I M M I G R A TIO N AP P EA LS

Be for e : KEITH , G IBBO NS a nd K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. DAMON J. K

EITH , Circuit Judge. Petiti o n er s P en ce n t i u s Va n d erk l ey (“ Va n d erk l ey ”) a

nd Marie N eltje Roring (“Roring ”), ( here inafter “Petitioners”) , natives and citiz ens of Indonesia, see k revie w of a

n order of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) dismiss ing the ir appe al from a n imm ig ratio n judg e ’s (“ I J”) de nia l of Vand e rk le y ’s a pp lic a tio n for

a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, protec tion under the United N ation’s Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other Crue l, I n human or Deg radingTreatment or Punishm ent (“CAT”). For the r easons se t forth below, we DI SM ISS the petition for re view insofar as it seeks re view of the denial of Petit ioners’ a pplication for a sy lum and relief under the CAT, and DENY the petition for re view and AF F IRM the de c isi on of the B I A i n

a ll o the r r e sp e c ts. I. BACKG ROUND Vande rkley , a 67-y ear

old male, and Roring , a 65-y ear -old fema le, ar e husband a nd wife a nd natives and c itiz ens of Indonesia. They have been marrie d since 1962, and have f our childre n – threeNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 2 of whom ar e in I ndonesia a nd one in the Un ited States. The fa mily lived in J akar

ta, Indonesia. On or a bout J une 11, 2000, and M ay 1 1, 2001, respe ctively , Vande rkley and Roring wer e lawf ull y a dmitt ed to th e Un ite d St a te s o n n on -i mmi g ra nt B -2 vis ito rs ’ v isa s, a

uth or izin g the m to

re ma in i n th e Un ite d St a te s unti l D e c e mbe r 1 0, 20 00 , an d N ov e mbe r 1 0, 20 01 . A c c or din g to Va nd e rk le y , p ri or

to h is Jun e 20 00 e ntr

y , he ha d vis ite d the Un ite d State s on tw o oth e r o c c a sio ns – first, in January 1997 for two wee ks, and ag ain in July 1999 for six months. Vande rkley t es tified that during his J uly

1999 vis i t , h e “was trying to f ind a way to apply on [si c] how to live in the United State s , ” b u t h e d id n o t a p p ly f o r a s y lum at t

h a t t im e . F o ll o w in g Pe ti ti o n e r s ’ la wful admittance in June 2000 and May 2001, they rema ined in the United States longe r than authorized by their visas and w ere there fore place d in removal proc eeding s. On April 7, 2003, and June 5, 2006, the U.S. Depa rtment o f J u s t ice c ommenced r emoval proce eding s ag ainst Vande rkley and Roring , respe ctively , with the issu an ce of Notices to Appe ar (“N TA”) alleg ing that they wer e re m o v ab l e under Section 237(a) (1)( B) of the Immigration and Natio na lity

Ac t ( “ I NA ” ) b e c a

us e the y re ma ine d in

the Un ite d St a te s long e r t ha n p e rm itt e d. At

a

m as t er ca l en d ar h ea ri n g h el d i n De t ro i t , M i ch i gan , o n S ep t em b er 8 , 2 0 0 5 , Va n d erk l ey , t h ro u gh counsel, c oncede d to both the fac tual alleg ations in his NTA and t o re m o v ab ility , and re quested relief in the fo rm o f wit hholding of remova l and protec tion under the CAT. Va nderkle y declined to desig nate a

country of re moval; thus, the court desig nated I n d o n esia a s the country to which

remova l would be direc ted. Throug h counsel, Va nderkle y stated that he was not elig ible for a sy lum beca use more tha

n one y ear had ela psed since he came to the United States and “ there [was] no g ood

rea son” to excuse the untimely filing. Thus, the I J conclude d that Vande rkley was statutorily

barr edNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 3

On ly

Va nd e rk le y su bmi tted an App lic a tio n f

or As y lum and With ho ldi ngof

Re mov a l. 1 Roring would be a derivative benef iciary with r espec t to asylum only

. 8 U.S.C. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(3)(A) ; se e als o Ca ste lla no -C

ha c on v . I

NS , 341 F.3d 533, 545 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (noting that unlike an application for

asy l um, family

members a

re not g rante d derivative status in applications for withholding). from asy lum and noted that Vande rkley was re questing withholding of r emoval, p ro t ec t ion under the CAT, and voluntar

y depar ture only

. On J uly 18, 2006, Vande rkley

applied for

asylum, withholdi ng o f re moval, and CAT protec tion. Also on J uly

18, 2006, in the immigration c ourt in N ewa rk, New J erse y , Roring f

iled a Motion for Chang e of V enue a nd a Motion to Consol idate p ro ce ed i n gs with Vander kley . I n her Motion for Chang e of V enue, Roringadmitted the fa ctual alleg ations in her NTA , and conc eded

re mov a bil ity . T he c ourt

g ra nte d Ro ri ng ’s mot ion s and or de re d th e ve nu e chang e d to De tr oit , Michig an, whe re V ander kley ’s proc ee d i n g wa s pending . On Octobe r 17, 2006, the I J issued an Or de r c on so lid a tin g the tw o c a se s. 1 At Petitioners’ merits hea

ring , held on Octobe r 24, 2006, despite his pre vious c ontention that he wa s ineligible, V ander kley soug ht asylum protection. He state d that he did not apply for a sy lum within a y ear

of ar riving in the United States bec ause he “wa s still trying to f ind out [ how] to do i t.” The I J emphasized her pr evious ruling that Vande rkley was ba rre d from asy l u m protec tion, but allowed him to prese nt evidence on the issue. I n support of his asy l u m ap p l i ca tion, Vander kley submitt ed a le tter date d May 16, 2003, purportedly from the pastor of the chur ch Petitioners attende d in J akar ta. Acc ording to the letter, both Va nderkle y and Roring witnessed a r iot and the burningand looting of a

supermar ket and store near t h ei r hom e on May 19, 1998, and member s of the chur ch

wer e afr aid to attend the c hurch be cause they thought it would also be bur ned. Va nderkle y noted,No. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 4

This alleg ed incident is not the same a lleg ed incident ref ere nced in the May

16, 2003 letter. 2 howeve r, that he did n o t h ave any documentar

y evidenc e to show that there was a ny relig ious

c on fl ic t in Jaka

rt a , that he wo uld be sin g le d out b y anyon e in I

nd on e sia fo r h arm or mis tr e a tme nt, or that he w ould be tortured by a g overnme nt official in Indonesia. At the merits hea

ring , only Va n d erkle y

provided testimony

on Petitioners’ beha lf. Va nd e rk le y te sti fi e d that he wa s bor

n in Su lawe si, I nd on e sia ; th a t he is p art Dutc h; t hat he and

his family are Christians – specific ally , Seventh-da y Adventists; and that his mother and siblings ( seven br oth e rs and

fo ur sis te rs ) a re a ll Chri sti ans wh o c ur re ntl y res id e in I ndon e sia . V and e rk le y a lso testified about alleg ed past proble ms he and his family fac ed in I ndonesia beca

use of their

relig ion, including an i n ci dent in 1998 wher eby “militant Musli ms” stopped Vande rkley and his family

on the ir wa y to c hurc h. I n a dd iti on to t his a lle g e d in c ide nt, Va nd e rk le y te sti fi e d th a t he a lso 2 “experienc ed proble m s” in I ndonesia be cause he is part Dutc h and wor ked for an Amer ican company . He a cknowled ged, howe ver, that the 1998 incident was “ the only bad thing that ever ha pp e ne d to [him ] in Ind on e sia .” Va nd e rk le y fu rt he r t e sti fi e d th a t he fe ars re tur nin g to I nd on e sia beca use he has hear d news repor ts a nd rea d mag azine article s about the burningof chur ches a nd the kil lin g and

sh oo tin g of

pr ie sts , a nd he do e s n ot b e lie ve the g ov e rnme nt o f I nd on e sia wo uld be a ble to protect him from “ the militant Musl ims.” I n addition to being targ eted because of his relig ious beliefs, Va

nderkle y also testified about the pe rsec ution he believes he wi ll face if forc ed to re turn to I ndonesia, be cause of his ethnicity and his employ

ment with an Amer ican c ompany .No. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 5 Following the hea ring , the I J issued an oral decision deny ing V ander

kley ’s application for withholding of remova l, CAT protec tion, a nd reque st f

or voluntary depar

ture. The I J fo u n d t hat Va nd e rk le y fa ile d to fi le his a

pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum wi thi n o ne y e ar o f h is a

rr iva l to the Un ite d St a te s, and that his proff

ere d excuse for the failure to timely file – i.e., “that he was trying to fig ure out how to ‘ do it’ ” – d id no t c on sti tut e e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s or c ha ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s to e xcu se his untimely filing. The I J went on to state that, “more importantly

. . . this recor d is devoid of any other

e vid e nc e wh a tso e ve r to de mon str a te e ith e r ch ang e d c ir c ums tanc e s o r e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s” to excuse the untimely

filing. The I J further

deter mined that Vande rkley

was not cr edible, noting that Vande rkley ’s written

a ppli catio n c on ta ine d “ ke y omi ssi on s and

omi ts e ve nts and

de ta ils of

his a lle g e d c la ims to perse cution and torture that wer e set forth in his testimony ,” for which Vanderkle y “fa iled to provide a convinc ing e x planation.” T h e I J specific ally relied upon the May

16, 2003 letter submitted by Vande rkley

as a “ key

fac tor” upo n wh i ch her a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination was premised, deeming the i ncident allege d in the letter a “key omission” in Vanderkle y ’s testimony and wr itten appl i ca t i on for r elief a

nd protec tion. I n addition, the I J stated that althoug h Vande rkley testified about a single a lleg ed incident in 1998 whe re he and his family wer e pre vented f

rom g oing to c hurch, he fa iled to mention this, or any other incident wher e he and his family wer e prohibit ed from going to c hurch, in his written application. The I J also found sig nificant Va nderkle y ’s fa ilure to che ck the appropr iate boxes on his application indi cating that he wa s seekingwithholding of r emoval base d

on his ra c e or natio na lity , an d his fa ilure to i nc lud e in h is a pp lic a tio n a

ny inf or matio n r e g ard inghisNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 6 fea r of r eturningto I ndonesia be cause he is part Dutc h, he wor ked for an Amer ican company , or he would be per ceive d as an A merica n citizen. Mo re ov e r, the I J d e te rm ine d that e ve n if Va nd e rk le y wa s c re dib le , he fa ile d to pr ov e that it

w a s m o r e l i k e l y

t h ann o tt h a th e w o u l d

b e p e r s e c u t e d

o r t o rtu r e d i f r e tu r n e d t o In d o n e s i a . T h e IJ found that “the rec ord is devoid of a ny evidenc e to demonstrat e t h at [ Va n derkle y ] has suffere d perse cution in a

ny way , shape or form in I ndonesia,” and that the rec ord is a ls o “d ev o i d o f any inf or m a t i o n w h a t s o e v e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t [V an d e r k l e y h a s s u f

f e r e d ] an y p a s t t o rtu r e in I ndonesia.” The I J deter

mined that Vande rkley

proff ere d no evidenc e of past perse cution or torture , an d a l l e g e d o n l y a s i n g l e i n c i d e n t o f b e i n g s t o p p e d o n t h e r o a d an d t o l d n o t t o g o t o c h u r c h

. T h e IJ

n o t ed t h at Vande rkley

did not indicate that the stateme nts made duringthe incident we re intimi dating , hara ssing, or menac ing, a

nd that the s ingle alleg ed incident did not involve phy sical mistreatment. The I J further noted t hat P etitioners were never “arr ested, detained, charg ed with a crime, inter

rog ated or

phy sically

mistreated by

any one in Indonesia.” Ac c or din g ly , th e I J de te rm ine d that Vand e rk le y did no t de mon str a te that it

wa s mo re lik e ly tha n n ot t hat he wo uld su ff

e r pe rs e c uti on or tor

tur e be c a us e : (1 ) he vo lun tari ly

re tur ne d to I nd on e sia and wa s unharmed w hen he r emained the re b et we en Dec ember 1999 to J uly

2000, following the alleg ed 1998 incident whe re he and his f amily wer e stopped from g oing to c hurch; (2) his mother,

seven brothers, four sisters and three of his c hildren all rema in unha rmed in I ndonesia; and ( 3) there is no evidenc e t h at i ndividuals in I ndonesia a re ta rg eted be cause they

have w orked f

or Amer ican companies, ha

ve spent time in the United States, or beca use they are part Dutch. Fur thermore , the I J noted that the United States Depa rtment of State Country Reports for 2005 stated that there wer eNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 7 i m p ro v em en ts for human rig hts in I ndonesia, a nd that althoug h I ndonesia ha s some signific ant pr ob le ms, the pr ob le ms o utl ine d in the Countr

y Re po rt s d o n ot s up po rt

Va nd e rk le y ’s c la ims

. Finally , the I J denied Petitioners’ applications for voluntary depar ture be cause Vande rkley did not have a valid trave l doc ument, and Petitioners did not demonstrate that they had the mea

ns

or int e nti on to d e pa rt the Un ite d St a te s v olu

ntari ly

. Th us , th e I J ord e re d Pe tit ion e rs re mov e d to I ndonesia. On Novembe r 13, 2006, Petitioners timely appea led t he I J ’s ruli ng to the BI A. On June 23, 2008, the B I A adopted a

nd aff irmed the I J ’s decision, with a dditional c ommentary , and dismissed Pe tit ion e rs ’ ap pe a l. On July 22 , 2 00 8, Pe tit ion e rs tim e ly fi le d a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s Co ur t. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of Review W h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e B IA a d o p t s an d a f f i r m s t h e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o nb u ta d d s i t s o w nc o m m e n t ar y, this Court reviews the decision of the I J as the fina l administrative order , while also consider ing the additional comments made by the BI A. Elias v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 444, 449 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citing Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2005) ). We r eview the I J ’s fac tual finding s, including adver se cre dibilit y finding s, under the substantial e vidence standard. Hamida v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 73 4, 73 6 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 7)

. Th e se “ fi nd ing s of fa c t ar e tr e a te d as ‘c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so na ble adjudicator would be compelled to c onclude to the contra ry .’” Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 64 F .3 d 7 00 , 7 02 (6 th Cir. 2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) ). I n co ntrast, we r eview que stions of law de novo

. Ramirez-Canales v. M

ukasey , 517 F .3 d 904 , 907 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that when the Court r eviews the B I A’s “a pplication of leg al principlesNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 8 to u nd isp ute d f

a c ts, ra the r t ha n it s und e rl yingde te rm inatio n o f tho se fa c ts or its int e rp re tatio n o f i ts g ov e rn ingstatut e s, ” the re vie w i s de novo ). B. As ylu m Petitioners first appea l the I J ’s deter mination that Vander

kley is statutorily

barr ed fr om relief based on the untimely

filing of h i s as y l u m ap plication, and that he f ailed to establish cha

ng ed

c ir c ums tanc e s o r e x tr aordi na ry c ir c ums tanc e s to e xcu se his fa ilure to t ime ly fi le . A n a lie n mu st demonstrate by clea

r and convincing evidenc e that he filed his a sy lum a pplication within one y ear of his arr ival in the United States

. 8 U. S

. C

. § 1158(a) (2)( B) . The only exceptions to thi s filing deadline a re “ chang ed cir cumstance s which materially aff ect the a pplicant’s elig ibilit y

for a sy lum,”

or “ e xtra or din ary

c ir c ums tanc e s r e latin g to t he de lay in f ili ngan a pp licati on wi thi n” the re qu isi te one-y ear time pe riod. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)( D). “Extraordinary circ umstances” may include mental ill ne ss, dis a

bil ity , le g a l dis a

bil ity , in e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, l awf

ul s tatus un til a

re a so na ble period be fore filing f

or asylum, or a pre vious tim ely but defe ctive applic at i o n . 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (5). “ Chang ed circumstance s” m ay include cha

ng es in country

conditions, chang es in the applicant’ s status due to chang es in United States law, or act i v i t i es in which the a pplicant has become involved outside his country that may p l ac e h i m at risk if retur ned home. 8 C.F .R. § 12 08 .4 (a )( 4) . T o q

ua lif y fo r e ith e r of the se e xce pti on s, an a pp lic ant m

us t f ile his a pp lic a tio n w ith in a reasonable period of time, g iven the cir cumstance s. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a) (4)( C)(ii), 1208.4(a )(5)

. Vande rkley

arr ived in the United States on or a bout J une 11, 200 0

. He d i d not file an

a pp lic a tio n s e e kin g a sylum un til July 20 06 . T hu s, it is un dis pu te d th a t w he n V and e rk le y fi le d h is

a sylum a pp lic a tio n, mor e tha

n on e y e ar ha d pa sse d sin c e his lawf ul a dmi ssi on

int o th e Un ite d St a te s.No. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 9 Pe tit ion e rs a lso do no t c on te st, no r se e k re vie w of , the I J’s an d BIA’ s f

ind ingthat V and e rk le y

did not present e vidence of “e x traordina ry circ umstances” to excuse the unt imely filing. Instead, they contend that “ chang ed cir cumstance s” should excuse the untimely filing. Our r e vie w o f t

he I J’s de te rm inatio n that an as y lum a pp lic a tio n is time -b arr e d is st a tut or ily limit ed. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a) (3) ( “No c ourt shall have jur isdiction to review any deter mination of the Attorney Gene ral” reg ardingwhether chang ed or ex t ra o rd inary circ umstances e x ist to ex cuse a n application for

asylum that is filed later than one y ear afte r e ntry

into the United States.). Acc ording ly , we rev i ew d en i al of a n asylum application for untimeliness “whe n the appe al see ks revie w of c onstitut ional claims or matter s of statutory construction” but not “when the a ppeal se eks revie w of discretionar

y or fa ctual questions.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale z , 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006) (c onstruing judicia l-revie w limitation of 8 U.S.C . § 1158 (a) (3) in lig ht of the REAL I D Act Amendment to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 2)(D) ). Petitioners ’ attempt to construc t leg al and c onstitut ional claims to avoid this Court’s jurisdictional bar is not persua sive. Petitioners contend that their right t o due proc ess was violate d beca use the B I A “misunderstood or misapplied the ‘cha ng ed cir cumstance s’ exception to the oney ear filing de adline” a

nd “fa iled to take into consi d er at i o n the full scope of the ‘c hang ed

c ir c ums tanc e s’ e xce pti on to t he on e y e ar r

ule .” Pe tit ion e rs c la im the B I A s ho uld have loo ke d at a ll of the ir argume nts on a

pp e a l “w hic h not onl y inc lud e d ‘c ha ng e s in con dit ion s’ in I

nd on e sia , b ut a lso

c ha ng e s in c ir c ums tanc e s re latin g to Pet iti on e rs in the Un ite d St a te s, a s w e ll a s c ha ng e s in a pp lic a ble U.S. law.” Spec ifically , Petitioners r efe renc e the National Sec urity Entry -Exit Reg istration Sy stem (“N SEERS ”), initiated in 2002, which imp o s e d “ s p e c ia l r e g is tr a

ti o n require ments for nonimmigr antNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 10

a lie ns fr om c e rt a in d e sig nate d c ountr ie s” a s a re le va nt “ c ha ng e in U. S. l aw . . . [that] mate ri a lly aff ecte d [Vanderkley ’s] eligibility for a sy lum.” 67 Fe d. Reg . 52,584 (Aug . 12, 2002). Al tho ug h I nd on e sia be c a me on e of the sp e c ia lly de sig nate d c ountr ie s in the NS EERS pro g ram in 2003, the lawdid not materially aff ect Va nderkle y ’s elig ibilit y

for a sy lum as he had alre ady failed to timely

file his asy l u m ap p l i ca tion by more than a

y ear when the pr og ram wa s

enac ted. See id. Mo re ov e r, Pe tit ion e rs ’ c on te nti on that the B I A f

a ile d to c on sid e r a ll o f t

he ir arguments is belied by

the re cord, which ref

lects the I J ’s and B I A’s conside ration of the issues r aised by Petitioners, inc luding whether Petitioners de monstrated the exis tence of cha ng ed cir cumstance s that m a te rially aff ecte d their elig ibilit y

for a sy lum or ext raor dinary circ umstances r elated to the de lay in f ili ng ; w he the r p a st h arm

to P e tit io ners wa s su ff

ic ie ntl y se ve re so a s to ri se to t

he le ve l of

pa st perse cution; and whether P etitioners demonst rate d that their l ives or freedom would be threatened i nt h e f u tu r e i nIn d o n e s i a

o na c c o u n to f

t h e i r r e l i g i o n , e t h n i c i t y o r t i e s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . F i n a l l y, Vande rkley

himself conce ded that he was inelig ible for a sy lum due to his unti mely application and the fa ct that there was “ no g ood rea son” to excuse the untimely filing. Thu s , beca

use Petitioners raise no colora ble constitutional or leg al claim but, rather, challeng e the I J ’s fa ctual dete rminations that Vander kley failed t o demonstrate c hang ed circ umstances to excuse the untimely filing, we dismiss for lac k of jurisdiction Petiti oners’ appea l of the I J ’s denial of

their asylum application based on the untimely filing. C. Withhol din g of Rem ovalNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 11

The I J corr ectly

noted that the REAL

I D Act of 2005, which modifies the standard g overning 3 cre dibilit y

deter minations, permitting the I J to consider a ny inconsi s t en ci es, inac cura cies, or falsehoods in a

n asylum applicant’ s statements, reg ardle ss of whethe r they “g o to the hear

t of” the appli ca n t ’s cl ai m , is applicable to the instant matter , as the Ac t gove rns ca ses filed a fter Ma y 11, 2005, and Va

nderkle y applied for

asylum on J uly

18, 2006. Howeve r, issues ra ise d in the notice of a ppeal a re de emed e x hausted whe re, unlike in the 4 instant matter, Petitioner does not file a br ief. See H assan v. Gonzalez , 403 F.3d 429, 433 ( 6th Cir. 2005). To qualify

for withholdingof re moval, an applica nt must demonstrate that there is a “cle ar probability ” that if re moved t o a designated country , he would suffe r future perse cution on acc ount of a protec ted g round. Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 640-41 (6th Cir. 2005). To establish a c lear probability , an applica

nt must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that he or she will be perse cuted upon r eturn. Id. Her e, the I J denied Va nderkle y ’s re quest for wi t hholding of remova l

on the g ro un ds that he wa s n ot c re dib le , and that in the alt ernativ e , e ve n if

the I J had

fo un d h im 3

cre dible, Vande rkley

failed to de monstrate his elig ibilit y for withholding of re moval or protec tion under the CAT. Although me ntioned in their notice of ap p ea l to the BIA, Petitioners did not challeng e the I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inati on

in t he ir br ie f t o th e B I A. Thus , th e B I A d id n ot s pe c if ic a lly addre ss the cre dibilit y deter mination in adopting the I J ’s decision. L ikewise, Petitioners d o not challeng e the I J ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination before this Court. Th is C ourt

ha s e sta bli sh e d that it

is n ot s uf fi c ie nt t o s imp ly

ra ise a re vie wa ble iss ue on ly

in the notice of

ap p ea l fi l ed wi t h the B I A, and not ar g ue the issue in the br ief filed w ith the BIA. 4 Ha sa n v . A sh c ro

ft , 397 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that “this require ment of exhaustion of administrative re medies as a prer equisite to jurisdiction in the fede ral c ourt of appe als is a cr eatur eNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 12

o f s t at u t e, n am el y

8 U. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ), an d n o ta c o u rt

- c r e a t e d d o ct ri n e” ) ( ci t i n g Ramani v. As hc ro ft , 3 78 F .3 d 5 54 , 5 59 (6 th Ci r. 20 04 )). Ac c or din g ly , w e do no t r e vie w the I J’s a dv e rs e

c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n. Mo re ov e r, we find tha t th e I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n f

ull y disposes of Petitioners’ application for withholding of remova l. S

e e S te n a j v

. M ukasey , 2 7 6 F. App’x 468, 473 (6th Ci r. 2 0 0 8 ) (d ec l ining to disturb the denia l of asylum and withholding of

re mov a l w he re the I J det e rm ine d th a t Pe tit ion e r l a c ke d c re dib ili ty be c a us e “ wi tho ut c re dib le evidenc e, [Petit ioner] cannot d emons trate e ither past per secution or a well-founde d fea

r of f uture p er s ec u t i o n ”) (c i t i n g Katabarw a v. Gonzales , 193 F. App’ x 519, 526 (6th C i r. 2 0 06) (c iting Ad hiy ap pa v . I NS , 58 F.3d 261, 267- 68 (6th Cir. 1995))). Ho w e v e r , e v e n

r e v i e w i n g

V a n d e r kle y ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l on

the me ri ts, we f ind that substantial recor d evidenc e strong ly supports the I J ’s and B I A’s d eter mination that Pe tit ion e rs fa ile d to e stab li sh past pe rs e c uti on

or a c le ar p ro ba

bil ity of futur e pe rs e c uti on

in I ndonesia on a ccount of

their re ligion, ethnicity

or ties to the United States. Va n d er k l ey testified about a single incident where he and his family wer e alleg edly

stopped on their wa

y to churc h and tol d n ot t o atte nd , and state d that he did no t e xpe ri e nc e any oth e r i nc ide nts wh ile liv ingin I nd on e sia that w o u ld ma

k e h im f e ar f u l o f r e tu r n in g . Wh il e w e r e c o g n iz e th a t o n e s in g le in cident may be

s u ff i ci en tt o co n s t i tu t e p er s ec u t i o n , t h e i n ci d en tm u s t b e s u ff i ci en t l y s ev er e t o wa rr an ts u ch a f

i n d i n g. Lumaj v . Gonzales , 462 F.3d 574, 577 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Moreove r, t he persecution mus t be more tha n

mere hara ssment, an d m u s t be inflicted upon the pe titioner by the g overnme nt, or persons the go v er n ment is unwilli ng or unable to control. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 1 4 6 F

. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 0 ( 6th Cir. 19 98 ); Pi lic a v . A sh c ro

ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Vande rkley has pre sented no suchNo. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 13 evidenc e. Thus, Petitioners fa il to establish that the evidenc e in the re cord c ompels a conc lusion that they wer e per secute d in I ndonesia. Nor doe s the rec ord compe l a conc lusion that P etitioners have a clear probability of future pe rs e c uti on . V and e rk le y te sti fi e d th a t hi s f

a mil y , a ll of

wh om a re a lso Se ve nth -d ay

Ad ve nti sts , curr ently reside in I ndonesia unharmed. Kol iad a v . I NS , 259 F.3d 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that the fa ct that Petitioner’s wife and moth e r continued to live in Ukra ine without incident sug g ested that Pe tit ion e r h a d n o r e a so na ble fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on ); se e als o Hak e e m v . I NS , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“ An applica nt’s claim of perse cution upon return is weakened, even unde rcut, whe n simil arly -situated fa

mily members c ontinue to live in the country without incident . . . or when the applicant ha s return ed to the country without incident.”)

. Moreove r, the fa ct that Vande rkley voluntarily

returne d to I ndonesia fr om the United States in Dece mber 1998 – followingthe alleg ed single incident where he was stopped from going to churc h – until J uly 2000, further

underc uts any contention that Petitioners fac e a likelihood of f uture pe rsec ution. S

e e Hak eem , 273 F.3d at 816. Finally , Petitioners proffe red no e vidence to suppor t V ander kley ’s claims that individuals who are part Dutc h, have lived in the United States, or have worke d for America n companies, ha

ve suff ere d pe rs e c uti on

in I nd on e sia . T he re fo re , V and e rk le y ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or wi thh old ing of re mov a l a lso fa ils

on the me ri ts, a s su

bs tanti a l evi de nc e su

pp or ts the I J’s a

nd B I A’ s f ind ingthat Pe tit ion e rs fa ile d to establish a cle ar pr obability of per secution if re turned to Indonesia. D. Relief und er t he CAT To obtain relief

under the CAT, Vande rkley must establish that it is “more likely than not that . . . he would be tor

tured if remove d to the proposed country of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c )(2) ;No. 08-3895

Va nd e rk le y , e t al . v . H

old e r, J r. Pag e 14

We note that even if Vande rkley had not w aived this issue, he has failed to present e vidence

5 to e sta bli sh a c le ar p ro ba

bil ity that it is m or e lik e ly

tha n n ot t hat he wi ll b e tor

tur e d if re tur ne d to I ndonesia. Thus, he is unable to satisfy the heig htened standa

rd for protec tion under the CAT. Pi lic ia , 388 F.3d at 951 (citing the s ame standard). Petitioners brie fly ref ere nce pr otection under

the CAT while outlining the pr ocedur al bac kg round of the instant matter , but do not challeng e the I J ’s and B I A’s denia l of their CAT cla im in their br ief to this Court. They have, the ref

ore, w aived the issue. See Al-Najar v . Mukase y , 5 1 5 F. 3 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Villareal , 491 F.3d 605, 611 ( 6th Cir. 2007)). Acc ording ly , we dismiss the petition for revie w on this issue. 5 III . C ON CL USI ON F o r th e r e a s o n s s e t f

o rth h e r e in w e DI SM ISS the petition for re view insofar as it seeks revie w of the denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum and relief under the CAT, and DENY the petition for re view and AF F IRM the dec ision of the BIA in all other re spects.