FILED U.S. COURT OF A P PEALS ELEV EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 23 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN 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. 05- 14795 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 78- 585- 150 A N A M A R I A M A R T I N E Z V A L D E R R A M A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N 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 forR e vi e w of

a D 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 23, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A na M a r i a M a r t i ne z V a l de r r a m a pe t i t i ons forr e vi e w of the B oa r d of2

Im m i grati on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order a ff i rm i ng the Im m i grati on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) or de rde ny i ng he ra ppl i c a t i on fora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i t y A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e ( “ C A T ” ) . A f t e rr e vi e w , w e de ny the pe t i t i on for r e v i e w. I . B AC KG RO UN D V a ld e r r a m a , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C o lo m b ia , e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s in A pri l 20 00 as a non -i m m i grantvi si t or w i th aut ho ri za t i on t o rem ai n u nt i l O ct ob er 20 00 . In O ct ob er20 00 , V al derr am a, on behal f of her se l f a nd her husband E dg ar F er nand o R ey es A ce vedo , fi l ed an appl i ca t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al a nd C A T r e l i e f . V a l de r r a m a s oughta s y l um ba s e d on he rm e m be r s hi p i n the C ons e r va t i ve P a r t y a nd he rw or k w i th the poori n R ol da ni l l o, C ol om bi a fora nonprofi tagency kn ow n as “ A ss oci ati on of P rofe ss i on al s of R ol dani l l o” (“ A S P R O R ”) . In her a pp l i ca t i on , V al derr am a s t at ed thatshe a nd her husband w er e s i ng l ed outby the gue r r i l l a gr oup know n a s the N a t i ona l L i be r a t i on A r m y ( “ E L N ” ) . T he E L N m ade t el epho ne threa t s a tV al derr am a’ s hom e a nd the bu si ness she s hare d w i th he rhus ba nd, s e nti ns ul t i ng not e s t o the i rhom e , pa i nt e d a thr e a t e ni ng m e s s a ge o n th e irh o u s e , w a tc h e d th e irh o u s e a n d c a m e to th e irh o m e w ith a lis t o f n a m e s . Va l d e r r a maa n d h e rh u s b a n d a l s o we r e t o l d b y a r e s t a u r a n to wn e rth a tth e EL N i n t e n d e d t o k i l l th e m.3

T he appl i ca t i on al so st at ed thatV al derr am a a nd A ce vedo w er e i nt er ce pt ed on the road by a van conta i ni ng E L N m em bers . T he E L N m em bers ov er t oo k t hem by forc e, t i ed them up and d rove them t o an i sol at ed ar eaw here there w er e other pr i s one r s . V a l de r r a m a c l a i m e d tha ts he w a s “ putw i th a gr oup of w om e n, ” a nd rap ed b y an E L N m em b er. T h e rap i sti n fo rm ed h er th atth e act i o n w as t ak en so th a ts h e wo u l d n o t“ b o th e rth e m a n y mo r e , ” a n d t o s e ta n e x a mp l e . Th e EL N m em bers then l ef

t , and t he pet i t i on er s e sc aped atdaw n and w al ked t o t ow n, w here th e y a s k e d fo ra n d r e c e iv e d h e lp . A ta he a r i ng be for e the I J , V a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do both t e s t i f i e d r e ga r di ng the a c t i ons t a ke n by the E L N a ga i ns tthe m , i nc l udi ng the ki dna ppi ng, r a pe a nd es ca pe. In addi t i on , V al derr am a s ub m i t t ed the fol l ow i ng exhi bi t s: (1) apo l i ce r e por tf i l e d by V a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do i n R ol da ni l l o on O c t obe r25, 1999, s t a t i ng th atth e E L N h ad “ m en t al l y an d p h ysi cal l y t o rtu red ” th em th ro u g h p h o n e cal l s, d eath th reat s t o em p l o yees o n th ei r ran ch , sp ray p ai n t i n g th ei r h o u se i n A u g u st 1999, l e a r ni ng tha tthe y w e r e on a hi tl i s ti n S e pt e m be r1999 a nd, on O c t obe r22, 1 9 9 9 , k id n a p p in g th e m a n d r a p in g V a ld e r r a m a ; ( 2 ) a le tte rf r o m th e p u b lic pr os e c ut or ’ s of

f i c e i n R ol da ni l l o, s t a t i ng tha tV a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do w e r e the vi c t i m s of

“ E xt or t i on, C a r na l V i ol a t i on, P e r s ona l I nj ur i e s a nd T or tur e ” a tthe ha nds o f th e ELN ; ( 3 ) a d o c u me n tf r o m “ Sa n A n t o n i o H o s p i t a l ” s t a t i n g th a tV a l d e r r a ma h a d b e e n tr e a te d o n O c to b e r2 5 a n d 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 fo rb r u is e s , h e a d a c h e , in s o m n ia4

anxi ety a nd depres si on , bu tm aki ng no m ent i on of se xu al as sa ul tor ra pe; (4) l ett er s f r om the C ons e r va t i ve P a r t y a f f i r m i ng the pa r t i c i pa t i on of V a l de r r a m a a nd A ce vedo i n t he organi za t i on ; (5) al ett erfr om the C i t y of R ol dani l l o st ati ng that V a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do w e r e r e gi s t e r e d w i th the c i t y ’ s “ c om m uni t y a c t i on boa r d” ; a nd ( 6) c opi e s of phot o- i de nt i f

i c a t i on A S P R O R m e m be r s hi p c a r ds for V al d erram a an d A cev ed o an d a d o cu m en tst at i n g th ey w ere b o th m em b ers. I n a n o r a l d e c i s i o n , th e I J d e n i e d a s y l u m , wi th h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l a n d C AT r e l i e f a nd or de r e d V a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do r e m ove d. T he I J found the t e s t i m ony of V al derr am a a nd A ce vedo no tt o b e c re di bl e, ci t i ng “ gross i ncon si st enci es bet w ee n b ot h o f thei r t es t i m on i es ” a nd concl ud i ng thatthe do cum ent s s ub m i t t ed as exhi bi t s w er e “ fr audu l entor no tauthent i c . . . . ” T he IJ spec i fi ed the fol l ow i ng as s o m e o f th e “m a n y ” e v id e n tia r y in c o n s is te n c ie s le a d in g to a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e r m i na t i on: ( 1) the da t e a nd t i m e of the a l l e ge d ki dna ppi ng a nd r a pe ; ( 2) the nu m ber of m en i n t he van; (3) the t ype of w ea po ns used; (4) the m anner i n w hi ch the pe t i t i one r s w e r e t i e d up; ( 5) the e xi s t e nc e of l i ghta nd e l e c tr i c i t y i ns i de the hous e t o w hi c h the y w e r e t a ke n a nd the na tur a l l i ghtout s i de of the hous e ; ( 6) the num be ra nd da t e s of

the tr i ps t o the hos pi t a l fol l ow i ng the a l l e ge d ki dna ppi ng; ( 7) the num be rof

da y s s pe nta tV a l de r r a m a ’ s a unt ’ s hous e a f t e rthe ki dna ppi ng; a nd ( 8 ) th e m o n th th e p e titio n e r s w e r e n o tif ie d th e y w e r e o n th e h it lis t. T he IJ foun d i n p ar t i cul arthatthe m edi ca l re po rtand p rose cut or’ s r eportAlthough theIJ did not note this, the documentation indicated that Ac evedo w as also a 1 m e mb er o f A S P R O R , w hi c hi s al s o i n c o n s i s te ntw i thA c e v e d o ’ s h e ari n gte s ti m o ny. 5 w ere “cl earl y n o tv al i d ” i n l i g h to f th e d i screp an cy b et w een th e p et i t i o n ers’ t e s t i m oni e s a s t o the da t e s the doc um e nt s w e r e e xe c ut e d a nd the da t e s l i s t e d on the re po rt s. T he IJ no t ed thatthe m edi ca l re po rtdi d n otm ent i on a s exual as sa ul t , that som e of the l ett er s a pp ea re d t o h ave been pri nt ed on the sa m e m ac hi ne, and t hat V a l de r r a m a a nd A c e ve do c ontr a di c t e d e a c h othe ra s t o w he the rthe e nt i t i e s w ho s e n tth e l e t t e r s w e r e h o u s e d i n th e s a me b u i l d i n g a n d th u s c o u l d s h a r e th e s a me pr i nt e r . T he I J a l s o not e d tha tthe l e t t e ri ndi c a t i ng tha tA c e ve do w a s a m e m be rof the com m un i t y a cti on bo ar d w as i ncon si st entw i th h i s t es t i m on y. T he IJ deni ed 1 as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T prot ec t i on base d u po n h i s f i nd i ng that th e k id n a p p in g a n d r a p e “n e v e rh a p p e n e d .” V a ld e r r a m a a p p e a le d to th e B I A , a r g u in g th a t th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng w a s ba s e d on m i s i nt e r pr e t a t i ons of the e vi de nc e , i na de qua t e que s t i oni ng dur i ng the he a r i ng a nd “ m i nor ” i nc ons i s t e nc i e s . T he B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, s t a t i ng tha ta l l of the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s not e d by the I J w e r e “ pr e s e nt a nd m a t e r i a l , ” e xc e ptthe t y pe of w e a pons c a r r i e d by the m e n i n the va n, w hi c h the B I A de t e r m i ne d w a s “ nota c l e a ri nc ons i s t e nc y . ” T he B I A not e d tha tthe i n co n si st en ci es w ere n u m ero u s an d “ n o tj u stb et w een th e t w o w i t n esses, b u tal so w i th the a s y l um a ppl i c a t i on. ” T he B I A a l s o not e d tha tV a l de r r a m a ’ s e xpl a na t i ons6

fo rth e in c o n s is te n c ie s d id n o t a d d r e s s th e p r o b le m w ith h e rd o c u m e n ts . T h is a ppe a l fol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A s yl um an d A d vers e C re d i b i l i ty A n a l i e n w ho a r r i ve s i n ori s pr e s e nti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y a ppl y for a s y l um . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A t t or ne y G e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nt a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f a “r e f u g e e .” S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(A ). A “ refu g ee” i s a n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n y c o u n tr y o f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity . . . a nd w ho i s una bl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e tur n t o, a nd i s una bl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of , tha tc ountr y be c a us e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -fou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i t y , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um a ppl i c a ntc a r r i e s the bur de n of pr ovi ng s t a tut or y “ r e f

uge e ” s t a tus . S e e A l N a j j a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o c a r r y th is b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g s ta tu to r y “r e f

u g e e ” s ta tu s , th e a lie n m u s t, w i th s pe c i f

i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e , e s t a bl i s h e i the r( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount of a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -fou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed fa c t orw i l l c a us e f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a j j a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287.We reviewthe B IA’s dec ision, “except to the ext ent that it expresslyadopts the IJ ’s 2 op ini on .” AlNa

jja r, 25 7 F .3 d at 12 84 . “ Ins of ar a s th e[B IA] adopts theIJ’s re a so nin g , w ewi ll revie w the IJ ’s dec ision as well.” Id. Here, bec ause theBIA’s opinion adopted the I J ’s opinion, we review both opinions. In doing so, w e review leg al determinations de novo. D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 817. We review f actual determinations, includingcre dibility determinations, under the substantial evidenc e test. Id. at 817-18. “ To reverse the I J ’s factual finding s, we must find that the re cord not only

supports reversal, but compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 ( 11 Cir. 2003). th 7 A n a l i e n’ s t e s t i m ony , i f c r e di bl e , m a y be s uf

f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the bur de n of p r o o f fo ra s y lu m . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( a ) . “C o n v e r s e ly , a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e r m i na t i on a l one m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe de ni a l of a n a s y l um a p p lic a tio n .” F o r g u e v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . th N e ve r the l e s s , the I J m us ts t i l l c ons i de ra l l of the e vi de nc e s ubm i t t e d by the a p p lic a n t, in c lu d in g d o c u m e n ta tio n . I d .

“ O nc e a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i t y f i ndi ng i s m a de , the bur de n i s on the a ppl i c a nt al i en t o sho w thatthe IJ ’ s c re di bi l i t y dec i si on w as no tsupp ort ed by ‘ spec i fi c, cogentre as on s’ or w as no tbase d o n sub st ant i al evi dence. ” I d. W hen t he IJ e n u m e r a te s a n a p 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 r te 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 fo rth a t o f th e I J w ith r e s p e c t to its c r e d ib ility f in d in g s .” D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . th B . V a ld e r r a m a ’ s C la im O n a ppe a l , V a l de r r a m a a r gue s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i na t i on w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. U po n revi ew of the re cord, ho w ever , w e di sa gree . 2Our review of therec ord indicate s that all of the inconsistencie s identified by the IJhave 3 support in the rec ord with one ex ception. TheIJfound that the prose cutor’s report wa s dated one day before the medic al report such that it contradicted Valderrama’s testimony that the petitioners retrieved themedical report be forefiling a report with the prosecutor . However, the rec ord reveals that the report from the prosec utor’s off ice wa s dated Oc tober 26, 1999. The police report stated that Valderrama was admitted to the hospit al on October 25, 1999, and w as filed on that day

as we ll. This one incorre ctly identified inconsistency

does not compel reversal in light of the numerous additional inconsistencies c orre ctly identified betwe en the a

pplication, the testimony , and documentary evidenc e. 8 T h e I J s p e c if

ic a lly e n u m e r a te d th e in c o n s is te n c ie s u p o n w h ic h h e b a s e d h is a dve r s e c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i na t i on a nd the s e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a r e s uppor t e d by the r e c o r d . N o ta b ly , V a ld e r r a m a d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t th e s e in c o n s is te n c ie s a p p e a rin

3 the re cord. R ather, V al derr am a a rgues thatthey do n otconst i tut e s ub st ant i al e vi de nc e be c a us e the y a r e “ m i nor ” a nd do not“ go t o the he a r t ” of he ra s y l um c l a i m orbe c a us e the y c a n be e xpl a i ne d by the fa c ttha tthe e ve nt s t ook pl a c e f i ve y e a r s e a r lie ra n d u n d e rtr a u m a tic c ir c u m s ta n c e s . A l though w e ha ve notdi r e c t l y a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue , the T hi r d C i r c ui ta nd the N i nth C i r c ui tha ve i ndi c a t e d tha ta n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i na t i on ba s e d on i ncon si st enci es m usti nv ol ve i ncon si st enci es re l ati ng t o t he basi s of the al l eged fear of pers ec ut i on (i . e. , “ the heartof the as yl um cl ai m ”) and t hatm i no r i ncon si st enci es a b o u t c o lla te r a l m a tte r s o ru n im p o r ta n t fa c ts w ill n o t s u p p o r t a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng. S e e G a o v. A s hc r of t , 299 F . 3d 266, 272 ( 3 C i r . 2002) ; C he bc houb v. dCongress re cently overrode thesecirc uits’ prec edent by enac ting the REAL

ID Act of 4 20 05 , w hich, amon goth er thin g s, amende d thelaw re g ardingc re dib ili ty determinatio ns to permit an adversecre dibility findingbased on inc onsistencies “without reg ard to whether an inconsistency , inacc urac y , or falsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s claim . . . .” See Pub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(a)(3) , 119 Stat. 230, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)). B e c au s eV al d err am a ’ s a s yl u map p l i c ati o nw a s f i l e db e f o reM ay 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , th ed ateth eREAL ID Act wa s enac ted, however, these new provisions do not apply to her c laim. Id. § 101(h)( 2), 119 Stat. 230, 305. 9 I N S , 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 3 ( 9 C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H o w e v e r , n e ith e ro f th e s e c ir c u its c ite th 4 a ny s t a tut e orr e gul a ti on forthi s de m a r c a t i on i n c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i na t i ons orfor the prop osi t i on thati ncon si st enci es m ustre l at e t o t he heartof the as yl um cl ai m . In othe rnon- i m m i gr a t i on c a s e s , thi s C i r c ui tha s notr e qui r e d a w i t ne s s ’ s i nc ons i s t e nt t es t i m on y t o rel at e t o t he heartof the cl ai m before the fa ct fi nd erca n d i sbel i eve that w i t ne s s . S e e , e . g. , C onr oy v. A br a ha m C he vr ol e t - T a m pa , I nc . , 375 F . 3d 1228, 1231 ( 11 C i r . 2004) . H ow e ve r , w e ne e d notr e s ol ve thi s i s s ue be c a us e the

th num e r ous i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i de nt i f i e d by the I J do i nde e d r e l a t e t o the e ve nt s gi vi ng rise to V ald er ra m a’s fea r o f p er se cu ti o n an d th u s g o to th e h ea rt o f V ald er ra m a’s as yl um cl ai m . S peci fi ca l l y, the IJ i dent i fi ed i ncon si st enci es re l ati ng t o t he key i nci dent s thatform the basi s of V al derr am a’ s a sy l um cl ai m – t he ki dn appi ng , ra pe, a n d e s c a p e – th a t le d th e I J to c o n c lu d e th a t th o s e e v e n ts n e v e rh a p p e n e d . T here fore , the i ncon si st enci es ar e m at er i al ra ther than m i no r. G i ve n the a bove - m e nt i one d i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a nd the doubtthe y c a s tupon the a uthe nt i c i t y of

s om e of V a l de r r a m a ’ s s uppor t i ng doc um e nt s , the r e c or d doe s not c om pe l r e ve r s a l of

the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i t y de t e r m i na t i on. F ur the r , theBe causeValder rama did not present credible evidence that she is eligible f or asylum, 5 she likewise f

ailed to establish elig ibility for withholdingof removal or CAT relief. See Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1292-93. 10 d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t V a ld e r r a m a is e lig ib le forr e l i e f . S e e F or gue , 401 F . 3d a t1287. A s the I J not e d, the doc um e nt s a r e of que s t i ona bl e a uthe nt i c i t y a nd do nots how how V a l de r r a m a w a s s i ngl e d outon ac co u n t o f a statu to ry fa cto r. A cc o rd in g ly, su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e I J’s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tV a l d e r r a ma fa i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t y fo ra s y l u m. 5 B a s e d u p o n th e fo r e g o i n g , we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.