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. 04- 2678 Q IA O L IN , Pet i t i oner

v. * A L B E R T O R
. G O N Z A L E S , A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R es pondent * Subst i tut ed pur s uantt o Fed. R
. A pp. P. 43c.

O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 77- 957- 568) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J ul y15, 2005
B efore: A L ITO , V A N A N T W E R P E N , and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y15, 2005)

_____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerQ i ao Li n, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, s eeksW e h a v e p r e v i o u s l yo b s e r v e d t h a tF a l u n Go n g “ ‘ b l e n d s a s p e c t s o f Ta o i s m, 1 B u d d h ism , an d th e m e d itatio n tec h n iq u e s o f Q ig o n g (a tra d iti o n a l [ C h in e se ] m a rtial a rt) w i t h t he t eac hi ngs of Li H ongzhi
. ’ ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 267 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (cit ing U
. S
. D ep ' t of

S tat e, H u m an R igh ts R ep o rtfo r 19 9 9 , C h ina, F eb rua ry2 5 , 2 0 0 0 ). T h e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t h a s d e c lar e d F a lu n G o n g ill e g a l, an d h a s re p o rte d lysu b jec ted its f o llo w e rs to v a ri o u s f

o rm s o f p e rs e c u tio n . See G ao , 299 F. 3d at268.

2 r evi ew of t he deci s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( "BIA ") aff i r m i ng t he deni al by t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( "I J ") of herappl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. T he B IA had j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 8 C. F
. R. § 1 0 0 3
. 1 ( b )
. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 a n d wi l l a f f i r m. I. M s . L i n ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es thr ough t he Los A ngel es I nt ernat i onal A i rpor ton M ay12, 2001 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs s i x day s l at er . S h e subm i t t ed an
a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r a s y l u m on Nov e mbe r8 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e o r i g i n a l d a t e o f h e rme r i t s h e a r i n g . To al l ow her t i m e t o cert i fyforauthent i cat i on anyC hi nes e- l anguage document s thats he mi ght pr offe rat her m er i t s hear i ng, t he IJ gr ant ed P et i t i onera cont i nuance unt i l D ece m ber2, 2002. A ft ert hathear i ng, t he I J deni ed M s . L i n’ s appl i cat i on. T he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on
w i t houtopi ni on on M ay21, 2004. T hi s pet i t i on fol l ow ed. II. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed atherm er i t s hear ing thathers ol e gr ound foras y l um w as her
conce r n t hats he mi ghtbe arr es t ed bypol i ce due t o herpr act i ce of Fal un G ong. She t es t i fi ed

1 t hats he had s t ar t ed pra ct i ci ng Fal un G ong i n ear l y1999; t hats he pr act i ced i ti n parks once
every w eek or t w o; and that , i n addi t i on t o pr act i ci ng, s he di s t r i but ed pamphl et s des cr i bi ng3

F a l u n Go n g b yp a s s i n g t h e m o u to n s e v e r a l s t r e e t s n e a r t h e p a r k s wh e r e s h e p r a c t i c e d
. As fo r he r co n ce rns a b o u t th e p o li ce , P eti ti o n er t esti fied that in l ate 20 0 0 tw o o f h er f ri en d s w ere
arr es t ed fordi s t r i but i ng Fal un G ong pamphl et s . Pet i t ion er said t hi s caus ed hert o s t op di s t r i but i ng t he pamphl et s a mont h l at er , i n l ate M ar ch 2000, forfea rof bei ng arr es t ed h e rse lf
. S h e tes tifie d th a t w h e n th e se tw o f rie n d s w e re late r se n ten c e d to a y e a r in p riso n in J a n u a r y2 0 0 1 , s h e q u i t h e r j o b a s a g ym t e a c h e ri n F u z h o u Ci t ya n d f l e d t o h e ra u n t ’ s h o me i n a rur al ar ea of

C hi na. Pet i t i oner t es t i fi ed t hat s he r emai ned conce r ned thats he w oul d be
arr es t ed bec aus e o ther F al un G ong m ember s s he knew w er e arr es t ed fordi s t r i but i ng pamphl et s i n Fuzhou C i t yar ound t hi s t i m e. T he onl ypr obl ems Pet i t i onercl ai m ed t o have w i t h pol i ce aft er herr el ocat i on t o her
a u n t’s h o m e o c c u rre d w h e n h e r f a th e r r e p o r te d to h e r in Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , an d p e rh a p s a g a in in D ece m ber2001, t hat pol i ce had com e l ooki ng forheri n Fuzhou C i t yi n l at e M ar ch 2001, and ag ain in Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , the lat ter ti m e w ith an arrest w arran t in h er n am e. O n this po int, there
w er e s om e di s cr epanc i es betw een Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m ony , her r es pons es t o ques t i ons fr om t he I J , and her s w or n s t at ement m ade upon her arr i val atL os A ngel es I nt ernat i onal A i rpor tw hen sh e f irst e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s. F in a lly , P e tit io n e r a lso tes tifie d th a t sh e d id n o t w a n t to
re tu rn to C h in a b e c a u s e s h e w o u ld n o t h a v e a jo b a n d b e c a u s e s h e s till f e a re d a rr e s t. P eti ti o n er d id n o t of

fe r co rrob o rati n g test im o n ythro u g h an yo ther w itn esse s. In addi t i on t o herow n t es t i m ony , Pet i t i oner s ubm i t t ed fourC hi nes e- l anguage document s t o t he I J , i ncl udi ng w hatw as al l eged t o be a w arr antforher arr es t dat ed J une 29, 2001. D es pi t e the4

e lev e n -m o n th c o n tin u a n c e a f f o rd in g h e r tim e to h a v e th e se d o c u m e n ts ce rtifie d p u rsu a n t to 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 87
. 6, P et i t i on er had n ot done so , and the IJ di d n ot consi der the d ocu m ents . III
. P eti ti o n er’s firstco n tention is th at su b stan ti al ev ide n c e s u p p o rt s n eith er the IJ’s adv ers e credi bil i t ydeterm i nati on no r t he IJ ’s al t ernat i ve fi nd i ng s that she fai l ed to est abli sh p e r s e c u t i o n o ra w e l l
- f o u n d e d f e a r o f p e r s e c u t i o n . B e c a u s e t h e B I A a f f i r m e d t h e I J 's deci s i on w i t houto p inion , “w e r evi ew the I J ' s opi ni on and s crut i ni ze i t s r eas oni ng. ” D i a v. A sh c ro ft , 353 F. 3d 228, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc )
. O urr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng
w h e th e r t h e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e t o s u p p o rt th e IJ ' s d e c is io n . Id
. at247. W e maynot
r ever s e an I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on orfi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s w e conc l ude that“any
r eas onabl e adj udi cat or w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary ” of the I J ’ s deci s i on. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ); s e e a l s o I NS v
. El i a s - Za c ar i as , 5 0 2 U
. S
. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (19 9 2 ). A ccor di ngl y , “t o obt ai n j udi ci al r ever s al
. . . , [Pet i t i oner ] m us ts how thatthe evi dence [s ] he p re s e n te d w a s s o c o m p e llin g th a t n o re a s o n a b le f a c t f in d e r c o u ld f

a il to f in d ” f o r h e r. E l i asZacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . at 4 8 3 -8 4 ; se e a lso L u kw a g o v . A sh c ro ft , 3 2 9 F
. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 7 (3 d C ir
. 2003)
. Pur s uantt o § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) of the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L aw N o. 109- 13 (M ay11 , 20 05 ), i nco nsi st encies , i naccu raci es, or fal sehoo ds i den t i fi ed by an I J gi ving ri se t o an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on m aybe now be made “w i t ho u tr egar d” t o w hether t hey “go[] t o t he hear t of t he appl i cant ’ s cl ai m . ” C f. G a o v . A sh c ro

ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r. 20 02 ). R at her, new S ect i on 11 58 (b) (1) (B )( i i i ) s t at es:5 ( i i i ) C r edi bi l i t yD et erm i nat i on– C ons i der i ng t he t ot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances, and al l rel evan tfact ors, a t ri er of factm aybase a cr edi bi l i t y d eter m i nat i on on the demeanor , candor , or r es pons i venes s of t he appl i cant or w i t nes s , t he i nher ent pl aus i bi l i t yof the appl i cant ’ s orw i t nes s ’ s acc ount , t he cons i s t e n c yb e twee n th e ap p l i cant ’ s orw i t nes s ’ s w r i t t en and or al s t at ement s ( w heneve rm ade a nd w hether or notunderoath, and co n side ri n g the c ir cu m stan ce s u n d er w h ich th e st atem en ts w ere m ade) , t he i nt ernal cons i s t encyof ea ch such s t at ement , the co n sist en cyo f su ch stat em en ts w ith o ther e v iden ce o f r e co rd (i n c lu d in g the re p o rt s o f th e D ep artm en t of S tat e o n co u n try condi t i ons ), an d anyi nacc ur aci es orfal s ehoods i n s uch s t a t e m e n t s , w i t h o u tr e g a r d t o w h e t h e ra n i n c o n s i s t e n c y, inac cu rac y , o r fa lseh o o d g o es to the h ea rto f th e a p p li ca n t’ s cl ai m , oranyot herr el evantfac t or . T her e i s no pr es um pt i on of c re d ib ili ty , h o w e v e r, if n o a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n is e x p licitlym a d e , th e a p p lica n t o r w itn e ss sh a ll h a v e a re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n o f

c re d ib ili tyo n a p p e a l. § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) . H e re , th e IJ id e n tif ie d th re e s p e c if

ic d is c re p a n c ie s . F irs t, t he I J found, Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed atherhear i ng t hats he di d not know t hat pol i ce had come l ooki ng forher pr i ort o herM ay2001 departur e fr om C hi na, buti n a s w orn stat em en tm ade t o an im m ig ra tio n o f

f ice r a t L o s A n g e les In ter n a tio n a l A irp o r t, s h e h a d sta ted th a t th e “ P u b lic S e c u ri ty C o u n c il” h a d c o m e to a rr e s t h e r o n M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 a n d a g a in a t “ th e e n d o f A p ri l.” Second, th e IJ f

o u n d , w h e n a sk e d a b o u t th is d isc re p a n c yo n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , M s. L in
s t a t e d o n l yt h a t“ [ t ] h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n Ch i n a . . . c o me t o myf a t h e r ’ s h o u s e l o o k f

o rme [ s i c ] o n e d a y a n d t h e yc o u l d n ’ tf i n d me t h e n t h e y ’ l l c o me t h e n e x td a y , a n d t h e n t h e yc o me t he nextday
. So t heycome m anyday s . ” T hir d , the IJ found, M s . L i n gave i ncons i s t ent t es t i m onyas t o w hen s he s poke w i t h her father and l earned of al l eged vi s i t s t o hi m bypol i ce
conce r ni ng her
. H er e, t he I J found di s cr epanc i es i n r es pons e t o hi s ques t i ons as t o w hether6

s he s poke w i th h er fa the ri n D ece m ber2001, on J une 7, 2001, orboth; and w hethert hey d is c u s s e d a n a lle g e d J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 a rr e s t w a rr a n t in h e r n a m e , a M a rc h 2 0 0 1 p o lic e v is it, a J une 29, 2001 pol i ce vi s i t , oral l t hr ee. I n t h e ab sen ce of anycorr obor at i ng t es t i m ony , t he I J concl uded thatPet i t i oner w as not cr edi bl e gi ven t he di s cr epanc i es betw een a nd among her te s tim o n y , h e r s w o rn a irp o rt s ta te m e n t, a n d h e r r e s p o n s e s to th e IJ ’s q u e s tio n s . M ind fu l of

the d ef ere n ti al st an d ard o f re v iew that w e m u st ap p lyto the IJ’s det erm i nat i on, our r evi ew of t he r ecor d r equi r es us t o concl ude t hat s ubs t ant i al evi dence
s uppor t s t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t y fi ndi ng. U nder t hi s s t andar d, t her e i s enough evi dence in th e re c o rd to p re c lu d e re v e rs a l o f th e IJ ’s d e c is io n o n th is g ro u n d
. See El i as - Zacar i as , 502 U
. S. at 481 n. 1 ( r evi ew i ng cour t m us tfi nd t hatt he r ecor d “notonl ys uppor t s t h[e] concl us i on [ o f re v e rsa l], b u t co m p e ls it”) . R e v iew o f th e re c o rd c o n f

irm s th e se d isc re p a n c ies , a s w e ll
as ot her s . A m ong t hem i s t hat , r egar dl es s of w hen Pet i t i onercl ai m ed she l earned of the al l e g e d p o l i c e a c t i v i t i e s c o n c e r n i n g h e r , s h e was i n c o n s i s t e n t a s t o whe n t heyi n fac t
occurr ed. Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thatpol ice v isi ts o ccurr ed i n M ar ch, 2001 and on J une 29, 2 0 0 1 , b u t h e r s w o rn s ta te m e n t p la c e d th o s e v is its in M a rc h , 2 0 0 1 a n d “ a t th e e n d o f A p ri l.” P e t i t i o n e r ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n a t h e r h e a r i n g , wh e r e i n s h e e x p l a i n e d th a tt h e p o l i c e wo u l d c o me “manyday s ” i f theycoul d not atfi r s tfi nd s om eone, di d notr es ol ve thi s i ncons i s t ency . For al l of thes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude the adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as bas ed on
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d s a tis f ie s n e w § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii)
. Pet i t i onernextcont es t s t he I J ’ s al t ernat i ve fi ndi ngs w i t h respectt o per s ecut i on and7

a w el l
- founded fear of per s ecut i on. I n i t s deci s i on, t he I J found that , even w er e s he cr edi bl e, Pet i t i onerw as nevert hel es s i nel i gi bl e for r el i ef beca us e t he ant i ci pat ed ar r es t t hats he fe ar ed di d notcons t i tute per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found i n the al t ernat i ve thatM s . L i n had not
es t abl i s hed a w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on beca us e s he had been abl e t o r el ocat e i n C hi na
w i t ho u t p rob lem s , and thatherpar ent s , w ho had cont i nual l ypr act i ced Fal un G ong s i nce 1 9 9 7 , h a d a lso b e e n a b le to re m a in in C h in a w ith o u t in c id e n t o r a rre st. Iti s w el l -s et t l ed that an al i en i s no t el i gibl e for a dis cret i on arygrantof asy l um un l ess h e o r s h e c a r r i e s h e rb u r d e n o f s h o wi n g th a ts h e me e t s th e d e f i n i t i o n o f “ r e f u g e e . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i) ; se e a lso Eze a g w u n a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 0 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 6 -27 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ); 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (a). T o q u ali fyas a “re fu g ee , ” o n e m u st be “u n ab le or u n w il li n g ” to re turn t o hi s orher countr y of ori gi n “bec aus e of pe r s ecut i on ora w el l
- founded f earof per s ecut i on
on acc ount of ra ce, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ar s oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” Fa t i n v . I

NS , 1 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 3 8 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ); 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). W e agr ee w i t h t he I J t hatM s . L i n w as notper s ecut ed her e. Per s ecut i on, as i nt erpr et ed byt he B IA , “i nclude[s] threat s t o li fe, con fi nem ent, t orture, a n d e c o n om i c res t ri ct i on s so
s ever e t hat t hey cons t i tut e a t hr eat t o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fa tin , 12 F. 3d at1240. H er e, nei ther Pet i t i oner nor any m ember of her fami l y w as arr es t ed, har as s ed, t hr eat ened, orharm ed i n any
m an n er. Pe titio n e r’ s f

ea r of arrest, b ase d o n the a rrests of tw o frien d s an d o ther m em b ers
o f h e r lo c a l F a lu n G o n g g ro u p , is n o t s u f f icie n tlyse v e re to c o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n , es p e c ially i n l i ghtof the I J ' s obs ervat i on t hats he s ubs equent l yl i ved i n rur al C hi na w i t h herauntforB eca us e thi s i s a ca s e of a l l eged gove r nm entper s ecut i on, had Pet i t i onerpr oven 2 that sh e w as su b

jected to p ast p erse cu ti o n , there w o u ld h av e b ee n a re g u lat o ry p re s u m p tio n th a t in te rn a l r e lo c a tio n w a s n o t r e a s o n a b le
. See 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )( 3 )( ii)
. T o o v e rc o m e th is p re su m p tio n , the IJ’ s f in d in g th a t P e tit io n e r c o u ld re a so n a b lyre lo c a te t o anotherar ea of

C hi na w oul d have t o be es t abl i s hed bya pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e . I

d. B eca us e M s . L i n does notr ebutthe above fac t s , w e conc l ude thatthey w o u ld h a v e s a tis f

ie d th e re g u la tio n u n d e r t h e IJ ’s a lte rn a tiv e ru lin g . 8 s o m e t i m e w ith o u t th re a t o r i n c id e n t o f a n yk in d
. See 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( i i ) ( “ An
a p p licant do es no t hav e a w el l -foun ded fear of pers ecuti on i f the appli cant cou ld a v o id per s ecut i on byr el ocat i ng t o anotherpart of t he appl i cant ’ s countr yof nat i onal i t y . ”)
. H er e, Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thats he l eftFuzhou C i t y i n J anuary 2001 and l i ved w i t h heraunti n t he
rur al C hi nes e countr y s i de unt i l comi ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n M ay 2001. She di d nott es t i fy t o anypr obl ems w i t h the pol i ce or ot her author i t i es dur i ng thatt i m e. I ns t ead, s he t es t i fi ed th a t h e r m o th e r, w h o a lso lef t F u z h o u C ity d u e to h e r p ra c tice o f F a lu n G o n g , co n tin u e s to l i ve w i th Pet i t i oner ’ s aunti n rur al C hi na and ha s nothad pr obl ems w i th the pol i ce. Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyal s o s how ed t hat her father , w ho al s o pr act i ces Fal un G ong, has not
e n c o u n ter e d a n yp ro b lem s w it h p o li c e , n o t w it h s ta n d in g s e v e r a l f a c e - to - f a c e in ter a c tio n s w ith pol i ce c oncerni ng Pet i t i oner , her Fal un G ong act i vi t i es , and herdi s appea r ance fr om Fuzhou C ity in 2 0 0 1
. 2 I V. Fi nal l y , Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt he I J erred in ref us i ng t o admi tand cons i derfour C hinese- l ang uag e d o cum ents pu rs uan tt o 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 87
. 6, i ncludi ng an all eged arr est
w arran t i n h er n am e d ated Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 1
. B ec au se P eti ti o n er f ail ed to raise this i ssu e b ef o re9

th e B IA , th e is s u e is n o t e x h a u s t e d a n d w e th e re f o re la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r i t. See A b d u lra h m a n v . A sh c ro ft , 33 0 F
. 3d 58 7, 59 4-95 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) (an “al i en i s requ i red t o rai se
a n d e x h a u st h is o r h e r re m e d ies a s to e a c h c laim o r g ro u n d f o r re lief if h e o r sh e is to p re se rv e th e rig h t o f ju d icia l r e v iew o f th a t cla im ” ); c

f. B h isk i v. A sh c ro

ft , 373 F. 3d 363, 368 (3d C i r. 20 04 ) (hol ding t hat fai l ure t o fil e a bri ef be fore the B IA did not bar courtof ap peals ’ juri sd ict ion w h ere n o ti ce o f a p p ea l bef o re the B IA “c ertainly w as suf ficien t t o m ak e the B IA
a w a re o f p re c is e ly w h a t is s u e s w e re b e in g a p p e a le d ” ). T h e re c o rd c o n f

irm s th a t P e tit io n e r fa iled to ra ise th is i ss u e in h e r n o tice o f a p p e a l to t he B I A and i n her br i ef t hat s he fi l ed w i t h the B I A s uppor t i ng t hat appea l
. H er e, Pet i t i oner
n o w reli es u p o n o n ly o n e sen tenc e, fo u n d in t ex t loca ted on p ag e 7 o f th at brief , to su p p o rt hercont ent i on t hats he ade quat el yr ai s ed the i s s ue bel ow . T he t ext i dent i fi ed byPet i t i oner i s an uns uppor t ed as s er t i on byPet i t i onerthats he “pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence ” s how i ng per s ecut i on. I t pr ovi des no not i ce t o t he B I A t hatPet i t i onerw as chal l engi ng the I J ’ s al l eged
error in fai l i ng t o cons i derPet i t i oner ’ s arr es tw arr antand thr ee otherC hi nes e- l anguage d o cu m en ts, n o tw ith stan d ing their l ac k o f c erti fica t i on pu rsua n t t o 8 C
. F
. R
. § 2 8 7
. 6
. N o w h ere i s t her e any ref

ere nce t o a cl ai m orgr ound of r el i ef a r i s i ng fr om an err orof fa ctorl aw
a l l e g e d l y c o m m i t t e d b y t h e I J
. A s s u c h , t h e B I A d i d n o tc o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e ; a c c o r d i n g l y,
u n d e r w e ll- s e ttle d e x h a u s tio n p ri n c ip le s , n o r m a yw e . V. Fort he fo reg o ing r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe I J ' s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed by10

s ubs t ant i al evi dence and thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derPet i t i oner ’ s unexhaus t ed gr ound of r el i ef a r i s i ng under8 C
. F. R
. § 287. 6. W e w i l l ther efor e denythe pet i t i on.11