FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 6, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. [ 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- 10063

________________________ B I A N o. A 77- 641- 841 Y A - Z H E N Z O U , 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

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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 6, 2007) B efo re P R Y O R , K R A V IT C H an d A L A R C O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M:Z ou alsoorig inally

re qu e ste d re lie f u

nde r t heUnite d N atio ns Conventi on Ag ains t 1 To rt ure(“ CA T” ), whic h th eIJ denie d. B e c a us eZ ou do e s n ot challeng ethi s d e c isi on on a pp e al, she has a bandoned it and w e do not discuss it further. Sepulve da v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005). Z ou’s asylum application was untimely , but the IJfound that extraordinar y 2 circumstances e x cused thelate filing . By the time of the he aring , Z ou had g iven birth to her second child. 2 Y a - Z he n Z ou, a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons thi s c our tf orr 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 ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i r m a nc e of

the I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l a n d d e n ia l o f

a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 a n d 1 2 3 1 . T h e q u e s tio n b e f o r e u s is w h e th e rth e r e c o r d c o m p e ls 1 the c onc l us i on tha tZ ou e s t abl i s he d a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on i f

s he r e tu rn e d t o C h i n a . Af

t e ro r a l a r g u m e n ta n d a th o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , we d e te r m in e th a t th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t com pel th e c o n c lu s io n th a t Z o u h a d a w e llf ounde d f e a rtha tw a s obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e . A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. I . B a c kgr ound Z ou , a c i t i ze n o f C hi na w ho had b ee n l i vi ng i n the F uj i an P rovi nce, ent er ed th e Un i t e d S t a t e s wi th o u tv a l i d e n try d o c u m e n t s i n S e p t e m b e r1 9 9 9 , a n d th e I NS se rved her w i th a N ot i ce of A pp ea l , char gi ng her w i th rem ov abi l i ty. S he fi l ed an ap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l o n th e g r o u n d s th a t s h e w o u ld be pe r s e c ut e d i f

s he r e turne d t o C hi na be c a us e s he oppos e d C hi na ’ s c oe r c i ve fa m i l y pl anni ng po l i cy , her m other had been ordered t o i m pl antan IU D and l at er w a s s t e r i l i z e d a f

t e rgi vi ng bi r th t o a thi r d c hi l d, a nd Z ou a l r e a dy ha d tw o c hi l dr e n. 23

I n s uppor tof

he rappl i c a t i on, Z ou s ubm i tt e d a n a f f i da vi tf r om he ra unt confi rm i ng thatZ ou ’ s m other had been st er i l i ze d i n 1 99 0. S he al so subm i tt ed copi es of the U . S . S t at e D epartm entC ou ntry R eport s f rom 20 00 , w hi ch re cogn i ze d the “ i nt e ns e pr e s s ur e t o m e e tf a m i l y pl a nni ng t a r ge t s s e tby the G ove rnm e nt ” a nd had “ re sul t ed i n d ocum ent ed i nst ance s . . . of forc ed abort i on and st er i l i za t i on . ” T h e 2 0 0 3 R e p o r t n o te d th a t c o e r c iv e m e a s u r e s “c o n tin u e d to b e a p r o b le m ,” al tho ug h i tac kn ow l edged thatthe po l i cy w as appl i ed m ore s tri ct l y i n the ci t i es th a n in ru r a l a n d r e m o te a r e a s a n d th a t th e N a tio n a l P o p u la tio n a n d F a m ily P l a nni ng C om m i s s i on ha d “ i s s ue d c i r c ul a r s na t i onw i de pr ohi bi t i ng bi r th pl a nni ng o f f ic ia ls f r o m c o e r c in g w o m e n to u n d e r g o ab o r tio n s o rs te r iliz a tio n s a g a in s t th e ir w ill.” Zo u a l s o s u b mi tt e d a n a f f i d a v i tf r o m J o h n Sh i e l d s A i r d , a r e t i r e d U . S. C e n s u s B u r e a u d e m o g r ap h e ra n d s p e c ia lis t o n C h in e s e p o p u la tio n p o lic y . A c c o r d in g to A ir d , C h in e s e c o u p le s liv in g ab r o a d w o u ld b e s u b je c t to th e f

a m ily pl anni ng po l i cy up on re turn t o C hi na, and forced st er i l i za t i on s c on t i nu ed t o b e use d t o p rom ot e the po l i cy . A i rd no t ed F uj i an adm i ni stra t i ve deci si on s a s e vi dence that C hi nese nat i on al s l i vi ng abroad w er e notexem ptfr om the po l i cy . A i rd re j ec t ed m a n y o f th e f in d in g s o f

th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t r e p o r ts a n d id e n tif ie d d o c u m e n ts di sc ussi ng a C hi nese w om an w ho had b ee n d eni ed as yl um i n A ustra l i a a nd had been force d t o u nd er -go a l at e- t erm abort i on up on re turn t o C hi na.4

In op po si t i on t o the as yl um re qu es t , the G ov ernm entsubm i tt ed addi t i on al re po rt s a nd art i cl es , w hi ch i nd i ca t ed thatforc ed st er i l i za t i on s w er e no l on ger to le r a te d a n d th a t F u

jia n o f f ic ia ls “la c k e d th e c ap a c ity o rw ill to e f f e c tiv e ly im p lem en t” th e f

am il y p lan n in g p o li cy . O n e a rticle in p ar ti cu lar n o ted th at C h in a’s o n e - c h i l d p o l i c y h a s b e e n i mp l e me n t e d i n e n o r mo u s l y v a r i e d w a y s , w i th s o me a r e a s t ol e r a t i ng f

a m i l i e s w i th f

i ve ors i x c hi l dr e n a nd othe ra r e a s m a nda t i ng s t e r i l i z a t i on a f

t e rthe bi r th of

one c hi l d. T he a r t i c l e s f ur the rnot e d tha ta l a r ge n u m b e ro f

p e o p le w e r e le a v in g C h in a a n d s e e k in g a s y lu m in o r d e rto a v o id s t e r i l i z a t i on. A cc ordi ng t o an u nd at ed profi l e of a sy l um cl ai m s f rom C hi na, F uj i an autho ri t i es di d n othand l e bi rths i n the U ni t ed S t at es stri ct l y, w i th fam i l i es r e c e i vi ng m ode s tf

i ne s f orvi ol a t i ng the pol i c y . A 2001 r e por tf r om the D epartm entof Just i ce confi rm ed thati n som e l ocal i t i es “ [o] vers ea s C hi nese [w e] re l a r ge l y e xe m ptf

r om dom e s t i c bi r th pl a nni ng rul e s a nd c a n r e turn t o C hi na w i th a p r e g n a n c y o ra c h ild b o rn ab r o a d w ith o u t b e in g p e n a liz e d .” T he I J de ni e d r e l i e f

, f i ndi ng tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on an d n o w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n , as th e ev i d en ce d i d n o test ab l i sh thatZ ou w ou l d fac e s t er i l i za t i on du e t o the bi rth o f herse cond chi l d. T he IJ no t ed thatthere w as no evi dence Z ou w as pregnantw i th o r had gi ven b i rth t o a thi rd chi l d. T he IJ further f

ou nd thatthe evi dence s ho w ed thatthe coerc i ve po l i ci esZ ou does not specif ically challeng e the denial of the motion to remand, a nd, there fore , 3 she has a bandoned it. Sepulveda , 401 F.3d at 1228. Thus, the evidenc e of Z ou’s third pregnancy

and the steriliz ation of her aunt in 2002 arenot properly before us. 5 w er e notenforce d and thatthe w orstthatw ou l d h appen i s thatZ ou w ou l d b e gi ven a f i ne. Z ou appe a l e d t o the B I A a nd s ubm i tt e d e vi de nc e tha ts he w a s the n pr e gna nt w i th he rthi r d c hi l d. S he a l s o m ove d t o r e m a nd t o a dd i nt o e vi de nc e the 2004 C o u n try R e p o rt, w h ic h a c k n o w le d g e d th a t c o e r c io n s till o c c u rr e d , a n d a n a f f id a v it fr om her other aun texpl ai ni ng thatthe aunthad b ee n st er i l i ze d w hen she w as de por t e d ba c k t o C hi na f r om J apa n i n 2002 a f

t e rthe bi r th of

he rs e c ond c hi l d. T he B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o rem and and di sm i ss ed the appeal , fi nd i ng thatthe re cord d id n o t e s tab lis h a r e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility th a t Z o u w o u ld b e s te r iliz e d if r e tu rn e d to C hi na. Z ou no w pet i t i on s thi s c ou rtfor r evi ew , chal l engi ng the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng that s he di d note s t abl i s h a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 3 II . P et i t i on for R evi ew W he n the B I A i s s ue s a de c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ I ns of a ra s the [ B I A ] a dopt s the I J ’ s r e a s oni ng, w e w ill r e v ie w th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s w e ll.” I d . I n th is c a s e , th e B I A “a g r e e [ d ] w ith th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e th a t th e e v id e n c e o f r e c o r d e s tab lis h e s n e ith e ra r e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility n o ra c le a rp r o b ab ility th a t th e r e s p o n d e n t w ill b e f o r c ib ly s te r iliz e d in6

C hi na f orha vi ng tw o A m e r i c a n- born c hi l dr e n. ” T he B I A m a de no f a c tua l f i ndi ngs on i t s ow n, and d re w no other l egal concl usi on s. W e c on si der thi s t o b e a n a dopt i on of

the I J ’ s de c i s i on. S e e i d. T o the ext entthatthe IJ ’ s a nd the B IA ’ s dec i si on s w er e bas ed on l egal de t e r m i na t i ons , ourr e vi e w i s de novo. D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 81 4, 81 7 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). T he IJ ’ s a nd B IA ’ s f ac tual det erm i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, a n d w e “m u s t a f f ir m th e [ ] d e c is io n if

it is supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on t he re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 83 -84. T he subst ant i al evi dence t es ti s “ defe re nt i al ” a nd do es no tal l ow “ re -w ei gh [i ng ] the evi dence fr om sc ra t ch. ” M a z a r ie g o s v . O f

f ic e o f U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 2 4 1 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “T o r e v e r s e th e 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 ly s u p p o r ts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e ls it.” M e n d o z a v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( consi deri ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al cl ai m ). T he fa ctthatthe evi dence m a y s uppor ta c ontr a ry c onc l us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f y r e ve r s a l of adm i ni stra t i ve fi nd i ng s. A defe m i v. A shcr oft , 38 6 F . 3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A n a l i e n w ho a rr 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 appl y f or a s y l um . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he A tt orne 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 a n a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f “r e f u g e e .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , 87

U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . T h e I N A d e f in e s “r e f u g e e ” a s f

o llo w s : [A ]n y p er so n w h o is o u tsid e a n y c o u n try o f s u ch p er so n ’s n a tio n a lity. . . a n d w h o is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n d is un abl e or unw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m se l f or her se l f of the prot ec t i on of, tha tc ountry be c a us e of

pe r s e c ut i on ora w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof . . . pol i t i c a l opi ni on . . . . F orpurpos e s of d e te r m in a tio n s u n d e rth is c h ap te r , a p e r s o n w h o h a s b e e n f o r c e d to aborta pre gn ancy or t o u nd er go i nv ol un t ary s t er i l i za t i on , or w ho has be e n pe r s e c ut e d f

orf a i l ur e orr e f

us a l t o unde r go s uc h a pr oc e dur e or f orothe rr e s i s t a nc e t o a c oe r c i ve popul a t i on c ontr ol pr ogr a m , s ha l l be de e m e d t o ha ve be e n pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ountof pol i t i c a l opi ni on, a nd a p e r s o n w h o h a s a w e ll f o u n d e d f e a rth a t h e o rs h e w ill b e f o r c e d to un dergo such a procedure or subj ec tt o p er se cut i on for s uch fai l ure, r e f us a l , orr e s i s t a nc e s ha l l be de e m e d t o ha ve 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 pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) & ( B ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntc a rr i e s the bur de n of p ro v i n g st atu t o ry “ refu g ee” st atu s. S ee A l N ajj ar, 2 5 7 F . 3 d at1 2 8 4 . T o est ab l i sh asyl u m el i g i b i l i ty, th e al i en m u st , w i th sp eci fi c an d cred i b l e ev i d en ce, est ab l i sh (1) pas tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct or w i l l cause s uch future pers ec ut i on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 13 (a ), ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. H er e, there i s no evi dence of pastpers ec ut i on . Z ou had n otbeen st er i l i ze d o ro th e rw i s e p u n i s h e d f o rr e s i s t i n g c o e r c i v e f

a mi l y p l a n n i n g . Se e Y a n g v . U . S. A tt’y G e n e r a l, 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 2 - 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h u s , to b e e n title d to re l i ef , Z ou m ustdem on stra t e afuture threa tt o h erl i fe or fr ee do m on ac coun tof aTh esta ndard s f or withh oldingof

remov al arelarg e ly

thesamea s th e y

arefo r a sylum , 4 except that an applica

nt must prove ref

ug ee status “more- likely-than-not.”Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287. As such, if a

n applicant is unableto meet the standa rd for asylum, she cannot qualify for withholdingof removal under theI NA. Al Na

jjar, 257 F .3d at 1293, 1303-04. Inth i s ca s e, th er e w as n o adv er s e c re dib i l i ty fi n di n g b y

ei th er th e IJo r th e B IA. Yan g, 5 418 F.3d at 1201 (holding that IJ ’s must make “c lean determinations of credibility .”). 8 p r o te c te d g r o u n d . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . 4 T he w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe s ubj e c t i ve l y ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e . T he s ubj e c t i ve c om pone nti s ge ne r a l l y s a t i s f i e d by the ap p l i can t ’ s cred i b l e t est i m o n y th atsh e g en u i n el y fears p ersecu t i o n . In m o stcases, 5 th e o b je c tiv e p r o n g c a n b e f

u lf ille d b y e s tab lis h in g th a t s h e h a s a “g o o d r e a s o n to f e a rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .” A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . N o tab ly , th e “p r e c is e c o n to u r s o f th e ‘w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r ’ in q u iry c o n tin u e to e vol ve . ” I d. T he appl i c a ntne e d nots how tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n not ” tha ts he w i l l be pers ec ut ed i f r eturned t o h ercoun try of ori gi n. IN S v. C ar do za -F on se ca , 480 U . S . 421, 431, 107 S . C t . 1207, 1213, 94 L . E d. 2d 434 ( 1987) ( quot i ng a

“ l e a di ng a uthor i ty ” w ho a r gue d tha ta pe r s on w i th onl y a t e n pe r c e ntc ha nc e of p e r s e c u tio n w o u ld h a v e a “w e ll- f o u n d e d ” f

e a r ) . I n thi s c a s e , Z ou t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he w a s a f

r a i d t o go ba c k t o C hi na be c a us e s he w ou l d b e f

orci bl y s t er i l i ze d, and there i s no evi dence i n the re cord thather f ea r w as n o t s u b je c tiv e ly r e a l. T h e q u e s tio n , th e n , is w h e th e rth e f e a rw a s o b

je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le .At oral a rgument, Z ou’s counse l clarifie d that Z ou now has a third child. In her motion 6 to re mand

be fo retheB IA, Z ou

alsosu bmitte d a le tter f ro m her a unt, who had h e r s e c on d c hil d while living in Japan and who w as sterilized upon return to China in 2002. The B IA denied the motion. Zou doe s not specifically challeng e this denial on appe al, and, therefore, she ha s abandone d it. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228. Thus, this evidence is not properly before us. Relianceon the State Depa rtment Reports is proper , as the State Department is “the 7 mos t a pp ropriateand

perh a ps thebe st re so urc e ”to obtain inf or matio n o n p olitic al situatio ns in other c ountries. Reyes-Sanc hez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F .3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Ruizv. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 440 F .3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006). Cf., Huangv. I NS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (e xplaining that “the B IA was not bound by the country

condition report in the rec ord, but it was entitled to rely on it, so long as in doingso it did notoverlook a ny contradictory

evidenc e dire ctly

presented by

the petitioner” ); Kra stev v. I NS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1277 (10th Cir. 2002) (statingthat the “useof such of ficial report does not substitute for an analysis of the fac ts of each applicant’ s individual circumstance s”). 9 Z ou ha d tw o c hi l dr e n a tthe t i m e of he rr e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . Z ou 6 s ubm i tt e d e vi de nc e tha the rm othe rw a s s ubj e c t e d t o f or c e d s t e r i l i z a t i on a f

t e rthe b ir th o f h e rth ir d c h ild , b u t th is c o e r c io n o c c u rr e d in 1 9 9 0 . T he C ountry R e por t s a c know l e dge tha tthe C hi ne s e gove rnm e ntnow p r o h ib its f

o r c e d s te r iliz a tio n a n d th a t th e f r e q u e n c y o f

s u c h c a s e s w a s “d e c lin in g ,” buti tc onc e de d tha t“ the us e of phy s i c a l c oe r c i on w a s di f f i c ul tt o doc um e nt . ” T he r e por t s do nots a y how m uc h the pr a c t i c e of f or c e d s t e r i l i z a t i on orothe rc oe r c i ve m e a ns ha ve “ de c l i ne d, ” w hi c h m a ke s i tdi f f i c ul tf orthi s c our tt o s a y w he the rZ ou fa ce s e ven a t en perce ntchance of per se cut i on . C ar do za -F on se ca , 48 0 U . S . at 7 4 3 1 . M oreover, al tho ug h there w as evi dence thatthe autho ri t i es i n F uj i an p ro v i n ce d i d n o tal w ays h an d l e b i rth s i n th e U n i t ed S t at es stri ct l y, th ere w as al so e vi de nc e tha tC hi ne s e c i t i z e ns w i th f or e i gn- born c hi l dr e n w e r e s ubj e c tt o the10

pol i c y . D r . A i r d s pe c i f

i c a l l y a tt e s t e d tha tC hi ne s e c oupl e s l i vi ng abr oa d w e r e not exem pt ed fr om pu ni shm entw hen they r eturned h om e w i th u nautho ri ze d chi l dren b o rn ab r o a d . T hus , a l though w e a gr e e tha tthe r e i s e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s uppor t i ng Z o u ’s claim s, Z o u fa ce s tw o d ifficu lt ies. F irst, i n Y an g , th is co u rt re jected A ird ’s t e s t i m ony a nd r e l i e d on the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt ’ s 2001 C ountry R e por ta nd a 1998 A sy l um P rofi l e, w hi ch st at ed thatF uj i an P rovi nce w as kn ow n for i t s l ax e nf or c e m e ntof

C hi na ’ s f

a m i l y - pl a nni ng pol i c i e s . I n s o doi ng, thi s c our the l d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tY a ng ha d f a i l e d t o pr ove a w e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on c oe r c i ve bi r th c ontr ol pol i c i e s i n F uj i a n P r ovi nc e . Y a ng, 418 F . 3d at12 03 . M oreover, i n Y ang, the fa ct s w er e m ore dramat i c; the appl i ca nthad been force d t o u nd er go som e type of procedure a nd pay afi ne. In the i nst antca se , Z o u h a s n o t b e e n f

o r c e d to u n d e r g o a n y s te r iliz a tio n o rb ir th c o n tr o l p r o c e d u r e . S ec on d, the qu es t i on i s w hether the evi dence c o m p e ls the c onc l us i on tha tthe IJ and B IA erre d i n fi nd i ng thatthere w as no obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . W e c a n n o t r e - w e ig h th e e v id e n c e , a n d o u rr e v ie w is d e f e r e n tia l. T h e r e c o r d c a n n o t m e r e ly s u p p o r t r e v e r s a l, it m u s t com pel it. M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . O n ly in r a r e c a s e s d o e s th e r e c o r d c o m p e l r e v e r s a l. S ilv a v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . On th e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s , a n d i n l i g h to f

th i s d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w,11

w e c a nnotc onc l ude tha tthe r e c or d c om pe l s r e ve r s a l . A c c or di ngl y , w e D E N Y the pe t i t i on.