P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60863 Su m m ar y Cal endar
J I AN Y ONG RE N P et i t i on er
v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I AN o. A 96 044 819
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Ji an Y on g R en peti t i on s f or r evi ew of

an order of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A p p e a ls (B IA ) d is m is s in g h is a p p e a l o f th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’ s (I J ) d e n ia l o f h is ap pl i cat i on f

or asyl u m , w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval, an d rel i ef

un der t h e C on ven t i on A gainstT ort u re ( C A T )
. R en chal l en ges t h e d e te rm in ati on t h at he w as not el i gibl e f

oras yl um . H e has fai l ed t o br i ef and t hus has abandoned any c hal l enge United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60863

2 to t h e d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l o rre lie f u n d e rth e C A T
. S ee Soadj e de v
. A sh cr oft , 3 2 4 F .3d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W e re v ie w th e d e c is io n o f th e B IAa n dc o n s id e rt h e d e c is io n o f th e IJ o n ly to th e e x te n t th a t it im p a c ts th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n . O n tu n ez -Tu rs ios v. A sh cr oft , 303 F. 3d 341, 348 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 02 )
. Ren as s e r t s t hat t he BI A a nd I J e r r e d i n de nyi ng h i s asyl u m ap pl i cat i on on t h e “ ‘ corr oborati on groun d. ’” B ecau se t h e B IA di d n ot ad opt t h em , w e w il l not revi ew t h e I J’ s c redibi l i t y or c orroborat i on d eterm i n a tio n s . Cf. Chu n v . I
. N
. S. , 40 F. 3d 76, 78 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4) (c o nc l udi ng t h at t h i s c ou rtcoul d revi ew t h e cr edibi l i t y f i n di n gs of

t h e I J speci f

i cal l y ad opted b yth e B IA). A n al i en seeki n g asyl u m ha s t h e bu rden of provi n g t h at he i s un able or unw i l l i ng t o r et urn to h i s c ount r y be c ause he s uf fer ed pas tper se c ut i on o rhas
a w e l l

- f

o unde d f

e aro f f ut ur e pe rse c ut i o n “ o n a c c o unto f r ac e , r e l i gi o n, n a ti on a l i ty, m em b ersh i p i n a p a rti cu la r s o c ia l gro u p , or p oli ti ca lop i n i on [. ]” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A); see8 C
. F
. R
. § 12 0 8
. 1 3 (b). U n d e r the R ea lID A ct, appl i c abl e t o as yl um appl i c at i ons suc h as R en’ s f i l ed on or af

t er th e M a y 11, 20 05 , e f fe c t ive da t e , t he al i e n has t he bur de n o f pr o vi ng t hata tl e as to ne o f t he
s t at ut o r i l y pr o t e c t e d g r o unds “ w as o rw i l lb e o ne c e nt r alr e as o n” f o rpe r s e c ut i ng h i m . 8 U
. S
. C
. § 115 8(b) ( 1) ( B ) (i)
. W e w i l lup h ol d the fact u alf i n di n g t h at an al i en i s no t e l i gibl e f

o r as yl um unl e s s t he al i e n m e e t s hi s b ur de n o f s ho w i ng t hatt he
e v id e n c e co m p e ls a co n tr a r yco n c lu s io n . C h en v. G on zales , 470 F. 3d 1131, 1134 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); see8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4)(B ). The BI A agr e e d wi t h t he I J t hatRen fai l e d t o m e e tt he “ atl e as to ne centralreason” requ i rem en t . Th e B IA f ou n d t h at t h e t w o prot est s i n w h i ch R en w a s i n vo lve dsu p p orted an i n feren ce th a t th e a u th oriti es so u gh t t o p rose cu te R e n fo rh is in v o lv e m e n t in ille g a l a c tiv ityd u r in gth e s e c o n dp r o te s t, n o t fo rh is pol i t i calopi n i on . R en ’ s asser t i on t h at C h i n a does n ota l l ow an y gatheri n gs f or pol i t i c alpr ot es ti s bel i ed byhi s ow n expe r i enc e dur i ng t he f i r stprot es t . H e has
n o t p o in te dto a n ye v id e n c e in th e re c o r d t h a tc o m p e ls th e co n c lu s io n th a t h isN o. 08- 60863

3 po l i t i c alo pi ni o n (o ra ny o t he rpr o t e c t e d g r o und) , r at he rt han hi s a c t i o ns dur i ng t he s e c o nd p r o t e s t , w as a tl e as to ne c e nt r alr e as o n f o r t he go ve r nm e ntb e at i ng h im d u r i n gt h a t p r o te s t a n dla te rs e e k in gto a r r e s t h im
. R e n h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t th e e v id e n c e c o m p e ls a c o n tr a r y c o n c lu s io n . S ee C h en , 470 F. 3d at1134. Ren a s s e r t s t hatb y fai l i ng t o c o ns i de rhi s e vi de nc e o f t he po l i c e s um m o ns th a t sh ow ed tha t t h e p oli ce w ere after h i m , the B IA ’ s d ecisi o n w a s con traryto Matt er of

D ass , 20 I
. & N
. D e c . 1 20 ( BI A 198 9) , a nd Ma tter of S -M-J

- , 2 1 I & N D ec. 722 ( B IA199 7)
. R en ha s not show n h ow t h e I J’ s orB IA ’ s fai l u re t o m en t i on or co n siderthis ev i d en ce w a s con traryto t h ese cas es. T o th e ex ten t t h e B IA credi t ed R en ’ s t est i m on y, t h e B IAi m pl i ci t l y determ i n ed that evid en ce c o r r o b o r a tin gh is t e s tim o n yw a s u n n e c e s s a r y . S ee§ 1158(b) ( 1) ( B ) (i i)
. Ren has
n otshow n t h at t h e B IAerr ed by fai l i n g t o consi der h i s c orroborat i n g evi den ce. H e a lso a ss e rts th a t th e d e n ia l o f h is a sy lu m w a s a v iola tion of Matt er of Mog ha r r abi , 1 9 I
. & N
. D e c . 4 39 , 4 46 ( BI A 198 7)
. Al t ho ugh he r e c i t e s t he Moghar r abif

o ur - pr o ng t e s tfo re s t ab l i s hi ng a w e l l

- f o unde d f

e aro f pe r s e c ut i o n, R e n m a k e s n o a r g u m e n t t h a t h e m e t t h is te s t o rt h a t t h e B I Ao rIJ e r r e din ap pl yi n g t h i s t est . M oreover, the B IAd i d n otd en y R en ’ s asylum cl ai m becau se he fai l e d t o e s t ab l i s h aw e l l

- f o unde d f

e aro f pe r s ecut i o n. The BI A de ni e d t he
as yl um appl i c at i on bec ause R en fai l ed t o e st abl i sh t hata pr ot ec t ed g r ound w as orw i l lbe one c ent r alr eas on f orpe rsec ut i ng hi m , as r equi r ed by § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1)(B )(i). Re n ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
.