FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1247 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N os. A 96- 282- 134 & A 96- 282- 135 VASILIY BAHTINE, MARIA VASYLIEVNA DRUCHKIV, CHRIS TINA BAHTINA, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 8, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and H U L L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:In this appeal, we discuss only petitioners’ a sylum claims. The I J al s o d en ied petitioners 1 wi thh old ingof

re mov a l un de r t

he I NAand re lie f u nd e r t he Un ited Nat ion s Co nv e nti on Ag a ins t Tortur e and

Othe r C ru e l, I

nhuma n o r D e g ra din gTr e atme nt o r P un ishme nt ( “ CA T” ), 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( c ). Ho we ve r, pe tit ion e rs have a ba nd on e d a ny c ha lle ng e to t

he se c la ims on

a pp e a l be c a

us e the y on ly me nti on the m in pa ssi ng in th eir bri ef on a pp e a l and , th

us , w e de c lin e to a dd

re ss t he m. Ba y ro v. Reno, 142 F .3d 1377, 1379 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 Va siliy Bahtine, his w ife, Maria Va sy lievna Druchkiv, and their daugh ter, Christina Bahtina, (c ollectively “petition ers”) , natives and citizens of U kraine, petition for r eview of

a final order

by the Board of I m

m igration Appeals (“ BIA ”) af fi rm ing w ith out

opi nio n th e fi na l r em ova l or de r fr om the I m m igr at ionJud ge (“ IJ ”) de ny ing pe tit ion er s’ c la im s f or a sy lum und er the I m m igr at iona nd N at ion al ity

A ct ( “ IN A ”)
. A ft er

r ev ie w , w e de ny

in part a nd d ism iss in part

the pe ti ti on forrev ie w. I. BACKG ROUND InN ove m

be r 2002 , pe tit ion er s a

ppl ie d f or a sy lum , c la im ing that B ah tin e suffere d past persecution andfeared future per secution bythe Ukra inian po lice, the Security

Ser vice of U kraine (“ SBU ”), and the Ukra inian prosecuto r’ s office based on hi s nationalit y , political opinio n, and m em bership in a particular social g r o up – th e R u kh p o l i t i c a l o p p o s i t i o n p a rt y. 1 Be fo re the I J, Bahti ne te sti fi ed a s f oll ow s. F ro m

appr oxi m at el y

Marc h 19 99 to Apr il 2002 , Bahti ne , a s am em be r of Rukh, part ic ipate d inc ri tic ism of a nd pr ote sts a nd d em onstratio ns a ga ins t the dic ta tor shi p of the n U kr ai nian P re sid en tThe I J alternatively denied B ahtine asy

lum on the gr ounds t h at (1 ) t he mistreatment he 2 suffe red did not rise to the level of perse cution, (2) he had not be en single d out by police, and (3) he ha d n ot s ho wn

an o bje c tiv e fe ar o f f

utu re pe rs e c uti on

be c a us e Pr e sid e nt K

uc hma wa s n o lo ng e r i n po we r. B e c a

us e we de ny

the pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w a s to the a sylum c la im b a se d o n th e I J’s a dv e rs e cre dibilit y

finding , we do not addr ess these a lternative c onclusions. 3 L eo nid K uc hm a. A s ar es ult

of his Rukh m em

be rs hip a nd a ct ivi tie s and h is
re j ec tio n of S BUCa pta in I gna t K lim en ko’ s of fe r to b ec om e aninf

orm an t f or the police on th e Rukh, Bahtine claim ed that his apartm ent was searched and he w as thr eate ne d, be at en , int er

ro ga te d, a nd arr es te d f

our ti m es . S pe ci fi ca lly , Bahti ne ci te d an Apr il 28, 200 2 un sanc tio ne d R ukh pr ote st whe re f

igh tin g br oke out be tw ee n th e pol ic e an d de m onstrator s. B ah tin e hit apol ic em anin the ba ck

w itha sto ne a ft er

Bahti ne w itn es se d th e pol ic em anhit a n e lde rl y

m anw ithac lub in the head. B ahtine alleged that a group of pol icem en then surround ed him and beat him w iththe ir

c lub s and b oot s un til he los t c onsc iou sne ss. B ah tin e w as take n to the pol ic e statio n, int er

ro ga te d, a nd thr eate ne d w ithf ive y ears of

j ai l t im e. T he police then too k Bahtine to the hos pital, but Bahtine escaped the hospit al afte r thr ee or f our hours and h id at a

f ri en d’ s ho use . H e ev en tua lly e sc ap ed to Po land, flewto Mexico, and illegally entered the U nited States in Texas w ithou t a visa. A ft er Bahti ne te sti fi ed

a t hi s r em ova l he ar ing , the I J m ad e ana dve rs e
cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing and d en ie d th e pe tit ion er s a sy lum
. T he I J a lso de nie d B ah tin e 2 volu ntary departure a s a m atter of discre tion, but granted vo luntary departure f

or4

D ru ch kiv and B ah tin a. T he BI A a ff irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n. T he pe tit ion er s f

ile d ape tit ionf

or r ev ie wc ha lle ngi ng the de nia l of a sy lum a nd the denial of volu ntary

departure to Bahtine.

II. D ISCU SSION Be ca use the BI A a ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n, w e re vie wthe IJ ’ s de ci sio n. S ee Y an g v. U
. S. A tt’ y G en . , 418 F
. 3d 1 198, 120 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)

.

“ The I J’ s factual deter

m ination s, including credibili ty determ ination s, ar e
re v i ew ed u n d era s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s t an d ar d , wh i ch p ro v i d es th at th e I J ’s de ci sio n c anbe r ev er se d on ly if the e vid en ce c om

pe ls a r ea sona ble f ac t f ind er to find otherwise. ” Chen v. U. S. Att’ y Ge n., 463 F.3d 1228 , 1230-31 (11th Cir. 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. A. Asylum

“ T he a sy lum

appl ic an t m

ust e sta bli sh e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum by of fe ri ng cred ib le , di rect , and sp eci fic ev id en ce i n t he reco rd .” Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 401 F. 3d 1 282, 128 7 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) ( quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). “ In dic at ion s of
re lia ble te sti m ony

inc lud e co nsi ste nc y

on d ir ec t e xa m inatio n, c onsi ste nc y w iththe writ te n app li cat io n, an d t he ab se nc e o f em be ll is hm en ts .” Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 440 F. 3d 1 247, 125 5 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6) “ [A ] n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n alone m ay

be sufficient to suppo rt the denial of an asy lum application.” Forgue,5

401 F. 3d at 12 87. “ [T ] he I J m ust of fe r spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons f or a n a dve rs e credibility

finding.” Id. “ Once an adverse cr edibilit y finding is m ade, the burden is o n th e ap pli cant a lie n to sho wthat the I J’ s c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not supp orted by

specific, cogent reasons or wa s not based o n subs tantial evidence.” Id. ( quot ation m arks om itted). H er e, the I J m ad e ane xpl ic it adve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing a s to Bahti ne a nd ga ve spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons f or it
. T he I J r el ie d up on s ev er al inc onsi ste nc ie s in Bah ti ne ’s tes ti m on y , a sp eci fic m ed ic al reco rd , and Bah ti ne ’s asylum in te rv ie w. Fo r ex am ple , the I J no te d th at

the m ed ic al r ep ort B ah tin e subm itt ed to co rr obor at e his sto ry –th at he w as be at en , arr es te d, a nd t ak ento the hos pit al a s ar es ult of the April 2002 dem onstration–in fact contradicted his testim ony . Bahtine testified that he w as a t the hos pit al f or thr ee or f our hours be fo re e sc ap ing
. H ow ev er , the
m edical re port stated that Bahtine entered as a patient on April 28, 2002 and was relea sed on May

25, 2002. Bahtine’ s onlyexplanation for this discrepancy wa s that the hosp ital told h is friend, who ob tained the report, that May 25, 2002 was the da te the hos pit al c los ed Bahti ne ’ s c as e. B ut this doe s no t e xpl ai n w hy the rep or t l is ts May 25 a s t he da te Bah ti ne was “ rel eas ed ” as a pa ti en t. In addition , the I J noted at the rem oval hearing that the m edical re port i n d i c a t e s “th e r e w e r e man y e x a mi n a t i o n s p [ e r ]f o rme d , th i n g s th a tI w o u l da s s u meA ce rtified interpr eter was at the asylum interview. 3 6 lasted a lot long er than the tim e y ou were there. ” Indeed, the report lists that Bahti ne w as e xa m ine d by asur ge on, a n “ E N T ” (e ar s, nos e an d th ro at doc tor ), and
an“ oc uli st” ( pr es um ab ly an op hth al m olo gis t or

a n op tom etri st) , that a

se ri es of
ex am in at io ns were p erfo rm ed , and th attwo pre sc rip ti on s wer e rec omm en de d. A ft er the I J qu es tio ne d B ah tin e’ s te sti m ony that he e sc ap ed

a ft er thr ee or f our hours in light o f the re port’ s list of exam ination s perform ed, B ahtine did n ot offer any explanation to alleviate the IJ’ s concerns. Furtherm ore, in his appellate brief, Bah ti ne who ll y

fai ls to ad dr es s t he IJ’s co nc ern s wi th th e m ed ic al rep or t. T he I J a lso c ite d in co nsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n B ah tin e’ s r em ova l he ar ing te sti m ony and h is a sy lum

int er vie wa nd B ah tin e’ s f

ai lur e to b e fo rthr igh t w iththe asy lum officer
. T he IJ noted that in th e asy lum interview, Bahtine initially twice 3 de nie d havin g e ve r vis ite d pr ior to O ct obe r 7, 200 2 or

havin g be ena rr es te d inthe United States, even afte r the asy lum officer indicated that there w as evidence show ing oth er

w ise
. A ft er

f urthe r que sti oni ng, Bahti ne e ve ntu al ly a dm itt ed to the
as y lum of fi ce r that he w as arr es te d inasup er m ar ke t f or the ft , w hic h he a lso adm itt ed dur ing his r em ova l he ar ing te sti m ony . B ah tin e al so l at er a dm itt ed to the
as y lum of fi ce r that he ha d be ento the U nit ed S ta te s th re e tim es tot al , w iththe previous trips occurring in 1991 and 1999
. At the r em oval hearing, however ,The I J stated that the testimony reg ardingBa

htine ’s p ri o r entries a

nd arr est in the United 4 States was not mater ial to his asylum-perse cution claim but that they show a pattern and pra ctice of not beingforthright. Th e REA LI D Ac t of 20 05 ame nd e d the Immi g ratio n and Natio na lity Ac t to pe rm it a dv e rs e 5 cr ed i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n s b as ed o n i n co n s i s t en ci es re gar d l es s o f w h et h er th o s e i n co n s i s t en ci es go to the hear

t of the asylum applicant’ s claim. See P ub. L
. No. 109-13, § 101(a) (3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005) ( codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(i)(B )(iii)). How ever , bec au s e t h e petiti oners’ asylum application wa s filed prior to the enactment of the REALI D Act on Ma y 11, 2005, this amendment does not apply

to petitioners’ cla im. See id. § 101(h)(2) , 119 Stat. at 305. Th e I J als o n ote d tw o in c on sis te nc ie s in B ahti ne ’s re mov a l he ari ngte sti mony and his 6 interview w ith the asylum officer reg ardingthe dates of

his arr ests in the Ukra ine and the dur ation of his de tentions. Upon review of the re cord, w e conc lude that B ahtine’s testimony in this respect was e ssentially

consistent. 7 Bahti ne te sti fi ed

that he ha d be ento the U nit ed S ta te s f our ti m es tot al , w ithpr ior vis its in 1991 , 199 5 and 1 999. Bahtine also claim s that his in consist encies w ere m inor and will not su pport an adverse cr edibilit y

finding. Som e circ uits have conclu ded that incon sistencies

4
use d to dis cr ed it ana sy lum -s ee ke r’ s te sti m ony m ust go t o th e he ar

t of the a sy lum cl ai m . S ee G ao v. A shc ro ft , 299 F
. 3d 2 66, 272 ( 3d C ir
. 200 2) ; C he bc houb v. I. N
. S. , 257 F
. 3d 1 038, 104 3 ( 9thCi r. 200 1)
. T his Co urt ha s no t a ddr es se d th e iss ue in a publ ish ed

opi nio n. W e ne ed

not r es olv e the iss ue , how ev er , be ca use 5 the inc onsi ste nc ie s id en tif ie d by the I J be tw ee n B ah tin e’ s te sti m ony about the Apr il 2002 pe rs ec uti on i nc ide nt and the m ed ic al r ep ort r eg ar din g hi s Apr il 2002 hosp ita l st ay

dir ec tly r el at e to the pe tit ion er s’ c la im s of pe rs ec uti on b eatin gs and thu s are suf

fi ci en t un de r ei the r standard
. 6We also rejec t petitioners’ cla im that the I J denied him a de novo hear i n g b y re l y i n gon 7 Ba htine’s interviewwith the asylum officer to deny their asylum application b ecause B ahtine admitted all of his prior entr ies and prior arr est in the United States at the r emoval hea ring
. 8 Ba se d up on the f

or eg oin g, the I J pr es en te d sp ec if ic , c oge nt r ea sons in supp ort of its adverse cr edibilit y finding th at w ere supp orted by subst antial
ev ide nc e in the r ec or d. T hus, w e de ny the pe tit ionf

or r ev ie wto the e xte nt tha t i t
c h a l l e n g e s th e d e n i a l o f

a s yl u m. 7 B. Volunt ary De partur e Bahti ne a lso c ha lle nge s th e IJ ’ s di sc re tio nary de ci sio n de ny ing him volu ntary departure. T his Court lacks jurisdiction to reviewcertain discretionary decisions , including judgm ents regarding the granting of volunt ary departure
re lie f. 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1 229c (f ), 125 2( a) (2 )( B) (i ). A lth oughthe RE A L I D A ct of 2005 provided an exception that allows this Court to retain j urisdictio n if a pe ti ti on forrev ie w in vo lv es “ co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f la w,” Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106 (a), 119 Stat. 231, 310 (codified at 8 U. S. C. § 125 2(a)( 2)(D )),

“ dis cr et ion ar

y or f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns c ont inu e to f al l ou tsi de the j ur isd ic tio n of the court of appeals entertaining a petition for review, ” Chacon-Boter o v. U .S
. Att ’y Gen., 4 27 F.3d 95 4, 9 57 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. A cc or din gly , be ca

use the I J de nie d B ah tin e’ s r eque st f or vol unt ar y de part ur e as a9

m atte r of dis cr et ion , thi s C ourt l ac ks j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wthe I J’ s de ci sio n, a nd th us we di sm is s t he pe ti ti on forrev ie w as t o t hi s i ss ue . PE TITION DISM ISSED IN P AR T and D ENIE D IN PA RT.