NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2272

___________ AL E XANDR U NI CO L AI E S I NDR E S T E AN, P e t i t i o n e r

v . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S , R e s p o n d e n t

___________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 029- 433- 505) I m m i gr at i on Judge: Fr eder i c Leeds

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

June 17, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: June 18, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerA l exandru Si ndr es t ean, a ci t i zen of R om ani a, s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal o rde r of rem o v al. S ind restean claim s tha t he s u ff ere dp ast p erse cu ti o n , an dthat h e f ea rsfutur e persecut i on i f rem ov ed, on accou nt of hi s r el i gious bel i efs. B ecause the adv ers e

cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n thi s cas e i s s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e w i l l deny th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. Si ndr es t ean f

i r s tent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n Sept ember1990. T he nextm onth, he fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on. T he r ecor d does notr evea l w hatbeca m e of thatappl i cat i on, b u t S in d re ste a n re tu rn e dto R o m a n ia in 1 9 9 2 . S in d re ste a n e n ter e dth e U n ited S tate s a g a in i n 1993, and he f

i l ed hi s s econd a s y l um appl i cat i on i n Jul y2007. Si ndr es t ean a l s o s ought w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e. A hear i ng o n th o s e ap p l i c a t i o n s w a s h e l db e f o r e a n i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e ( I J ) i n N e w a rk , N e w J e r s e y. S in d re ste a n tes tifie da t th e h e a rin g th a t h e w a s b o rn in o n e o f th e v ill a g e s o f

B a ia M ar e. A ccor di ng t o Si ndr es t ean, every one i n the vi l l age be l onged t o the s ame O rthodox C hr i s t i an chur ch. I n 1984, how ever , Si ndr es t ean and hi s par ent s s w i t ched thei rr el i gi ous aff i l i at i on t o a Pent ecos t al chur ch i n the ci tyof Ti r gu L apus . E ventual l y , Pent ecos t al ch u rch g athe ri n g s w ere h eld a t th e S ind restean h o m e. S ix m o n ths a fter S ind restean ’s conver s i on, m ember s of the vi l l age be gan t o r et al i at e aga i ns thi m . Forexampl e, atthe behes tof a l ocalpr i es t , Si ndr es t ean’ s hous e w as vandal i zed. I n addi t i on, Si ndr es t ean w as cal l ed t o the pol i ce s t at i on and ques t i oned about“the r eas on that[he] change d O rthodoxy t o Pent ecos t al and w hat[hi s ] i nt ent i ons [w er e] . ” I n 1992, aft erSi ndr es t ean ha d fi ni s hed hi s s ervi ce i n the R om ani an arm y , he w as beat en bya pol i ceman w ho s us pect ed that Si ndr es t ean w oul d r es um e hi s obs ervance of the Pent ecos t al fai th.W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w af in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). 1 S e e A b d u lai v . A sh c ro f t, 23 9 F .3 d5 4 2 , 5 4 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 ). “[ W ]h e n th e B IA b o th a d o p ts the fi ndi ngs of the I Jand di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I Jand B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and w i l l uphol d thatdet erm i nat i on “unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be co m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F . 3 d2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A tthe cl os e of the hear i ng, the I Jm ade an adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and deni ed Si ndr es t ean a l l r el i ef. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) di s m i s s ed Si ndr es t ean’ s appea l . T he B I A fi r s tdet erm i ned thatSi ndr es t ean ha d w ai ved any chal l enge t o the I J ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re . T h e B IA n e x t d e term in e dth a t th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. T he B IA con cl ud ed that“i n li gh tof the adv ers e c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g a n dc o u n tryc o n d iti o n s o f re c o rd . . . [S in d re ste a n ] h a s n o t m e t h is bur den of pr oof foras y l um . ” Si ndr es t ean appeal ed. 1 II. O n ap peal, S i nd res t ean ch al l eng es the B IA ’s ado pti on of the IJ ’s adv ers e c re d ib ili tyd e term in a tio n . S in d re ste a n a rg u e s th a t h e h a s m e t h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f f o r h is a sy lu m c laim . W e re

jec t th is a rg u m e n t, fo r w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i n thi s cas e i s s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e agree w i th the I J that “there w ere s i gn i fi cant and m at eri al i nco nsi st encies ” betw een Si ndr es t ean’ s 1990 as y l um appl i cat i on and hi s t es t i m ony . Forexampl e, the 1990 appl i cat i on s t at es thatSi ndr es t ean’ s r el i gi on w as E as t ern O rthodox, the veryr el i gi on thatSi ndr es t ean a l s o t es t i fi ed thatC os m a w as actual l yone of the pol i ce of fi cer s that 2 br oughthi m i n forques t i oni ng i n the 1980s . Perhaps thatw as a di ffe r ent“Eugen C o sm a ,” b u t w ith o u t su f f icie n t ex p lan a tio n , tha t tes tim o n yis n o t ea silyre c o n c iled w ith the fol l ow i ng l i ne fr om the C os m a af fi davi t : “I m et[Si ndr es t ean] i n June 1992 atthe P e n te c o s ta l C h u rc h . . ..” Si ndr es t ean t es t i fi ed t o abandoni ng i n 1984. L eavi ng as i de the 1990 appl i cat i on, though, m a ter ial in c o n sis ten c ies e x ist b e tw e e n S in d re ste a n ’s 2 0 0 7 a sy lu m ap p lica tio n , h is c o rro b o ra to rye v id e n c e , an dh is te stim o n y . A s th e IJ n o ted , the a c ts o f v a n d a lism d o n e to Si ndr es t ean’ s hous e thathe des cr i bed i n hi s t es t i m onyar e notm ent i oned i n the as y l um ap p lic a tio n , n o r i s a n yin f o rm a tio n ab o u t P e n te c o s ta l c h u rc h s e rv ic e s h e ld in th e h o u s e . F u rth e rm o re , the e v id e n c e p re se n ted c o n c e rn in g a“ E u g e n C o sm a ” is in c o n sis ten t at b e st: Si ndr es t ean s ubm i tt ed an a ffi davi tfr om C os m a s t at i ng thathe w as w i th Si ndr es t ean w hen th e yw e re sto p p e db yp o lice in 1 9 9 2 , y e t S in d re ste a n tes tifie dth a t h e w a s b yh im se lf dur i ng thati nci dent . Faced w i th thes e fa ct s , i tw as r eas onabl e forthe I Jt o conclude that 2 S i n d r e s t e a n l a c k e dc r e d i b i l i ty. T he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s fat al t o Si ndr es t ean’ s r eques tfor a sy lu m , se e D ia v . A sh c ro f t, 35 3 F .3 d2 2 8 , 2 4 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (e n b a n c ), an dw e w ill th e re f o re d e n yh is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w .