FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAR 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 14527 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 97- 924- 773 A 97- 924- 774 AZ I M DOML AT J AN OV , M A R I J A S N I T K O , P e titio n e r s , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 12, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A z im D o m la tja n o v , an a tiv e o f U z b e k is ta n , a n d h is w if e , M a r ijaS n itk o , a2

r e s id e n t o f

L a tv ia , w e r e a d m itte d to th e U n ite d S ta te s a s n o n - im m ig r a n t v is ito r s . B oth s t a y e d l onge rtha n the s i x m onths the y w e r e a l l ow e d t o vi s i t . T he I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e c ha r ge d the m w i th r e m ovabi l i ty f or ov er st ay i ng thei r tri p t o the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ). D om l at j anov and S ni tko conceded they w er e r em ov abl e. A tthe sa m e t i m e, the y appl i e d f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e . D om l a t j a nov c l a i m e d tha the w a s pe r s e c ut e d i n U z be ki s t a n f or pr a c t i c i ng hi s B apt i s tf

a i th. S ni tko r e l i e d on he rhus ba nd’ s appl i c a t i on. I n s upportof

the i rc l a i m s , D om l a t

j a nov t e s t i f

i e d tha the c onve r t e d t o the B apt i stfa i th i n 1 97 8. H e f urther t es t i fi ed thatst art i ng i n 1 99 5 h e had se vera l c onf r ont a t i ons i n U z be ki s t a n be c aus e of hi s r e l i gi on. D om l a t

j a nov t e s t i f

i e d t o the fo l l o w i n g i n ci d en t s:

• In 19 95 , D om l at

j on ov w as expel l ed fr om the U zbek nat i on al rocket m o d e lin g te a m f

o rb e in g aB ap tis t.

• O n A pri l 12 , 19 97 , the U zbek po l i ce i nt errupt ed D om l at j anov atan u n r e g is te r e d p r a y e rs e rv ic e in th e h o m e o f o n e o f h is f e llo w c o n g r e g a n ts . T he po l i ce i nsul t ed and i nt errogat ed tho se w ho w er e pra yi ng and w arned the m tha tthe y w oul d be c r i m i na l l y pr os e c ut e d the ne xtt i m e the y he l d a s e rvi c e w i thoutr e gi s t e r i ng.

• I n M a r c h 1998, a ta nothe rs e c r e tpr a y e rm e e t i ng, the pol i c e , w e a r i ng3

c a m ouf l a ge , s t oppe d the pr a y e r s , s e a r c he d e ve ry one w ho w a s the r e , a nd c onf i s c a t e d a l l B apt i s tr e l i gi ous m a t e r i a l f ound i n the hous e . D om l a t j a nov a nd s om e of

hi s f e l l ow c ongr e ga nt s w e r e a l s o t a ke n t o the pol i c e s t a t i on f or three days . W hi l e there , the po l i ce t ore off a t oenai l on D om l at

j anov ’ s l ef

t f ootw i th pl i e r s a nd be a thi m w i th aba t on. ( W e w i l l r e f e rt o thi s a s the

“ t oenai l i nci dent . ”)

• In M ay19 99 , fol l ow i ng a pra ye r m ee t i ng , D om l at j anov and o ther cong re gant s w er e w ai t i ng ata bus st op t o g o h om e. W hi l e w ai t i ng , t en p e o p le ap p r o a c h e d th e m a n d to ld th e m th a t B ap tis ts d id n o t b e lo n g in U z b e k is ta n . T h e te n p e o p le th e n p h y s ic a lly a tta c k e d D o m la tjan o v a n d h is f e l l ow c ongr e gant s . D ur i ng the a l t e r c a t i on, D om l a t j a nov w a s s t abbe d w i th a kni f e i n hi s l e f

tha nd.

• I n M a r c h 2000, D om l a t j a nov’ s s i xt e e n- y e a r - ol d s on w a s a tt a c ke d a ts c hool by f ourof hi s c l a s s m a t e s . H i s nos e a nd f a c e w e r e i nj ur e d a s ar e s ul tof the att ac k. T he att ac kers cl ai m ed t o b eatD om l at j anov ’ s s on because hi s f ather w a s B ap tis t.

• I n S e pt e m be r2002, w he n r e turni ng hom e f r om apr a y e rm e e t i ng, f i ve m e n, w h o D o m la tja n o v b e lie v e d w e r e M u s lim s , b e a t h im a n d th r e a te n e d to k ill hi m . T he m e n s a i d tha tB apt i s t s do notbe l ong i n U z be ki s t a n. A s ar e s ul tof thi s be a t i ng, D om l a t

j a nov ha d brui s i ng on hi s ne c k.4

D om l a t j a nov a l s o s ubm i tt e d doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e t o the i m m i gr a t i on j udge su p p o rt i n g h i s cl ai m th ath e w as p ersecu t ed o n acco u n to f h i s B ap t i stfai th . T h ese s upport i ng doc um e nt s i nc l ude d ( 1) al e tt e rf r om the F i r s tB apt i s tC hur c h of F l or i da r e ga r di ng D om l a t

j a nov’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the c hur c h, ( 2) l e tt e r s f r om D o m la tja n o v ’s c h ild r e n in U z b e k is ta n s ta tin g th a t th e y f e a rf o rth e irf a th e r ’s s a f

e ty i f he r e turns be c aus e pe opl e c ont i nue t o thr e a t e n hi m w i th de a th f orhi s f a i th, ( 3) m e d ic a l r e c o r d s , a n d ( 4 ) h u m a n ita r ia n r e p o r ts r e g a r d in g th e c o n d itio n s in U z be ki s t a n. D o m l at j an o v ’ s m ed i cal reco rd s i n d i cat ed th ath e w as treat ed fo r an x i ety, s le e p d is o r d e r s a n d h e a d a c h e s d u e to th e p h y s ic a l ab u s e h e s u f f e r e d in U z b e k is ta n . T he re cords a l so show ed thathe had a “ w el l heal ed kn i fe w ou nd on hi s l ef thand . ” A se para t e c l i ni ca l re po rtfr om a l i ce nsed cl i ni ca l soci al w orker provi ded that D o m l at j an o v h ad m aj o r d ep ressi v e d i so rd er an d p o sttrau m at i c stress d i so rd er as a r e s ul tof the vi ol e nc e he s uf

f e r e d i n U z be ki s t a n. H um an R i gh t s W at ch’ s 199 9 reportfor U zbeki st an prov i ded thatthe U zbek gove rnm e ntw a s know n t o m a ke a rbi tr a ry a rr e s t s , t or tur e m e n i n c us t ody , a nd di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns tc e rt a i n r e l i gi ons . T he 1999 r e por tt ol d of as pe c i f i c i nc i de nt w he r e aB apt i s tpa s t orw a s arr e s t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d t o tw o y e a r s of ha r d l aborf

or o rg an i zi n g u n san ct i o n ed g ath eri n g s, m eet i n g s, an d d em o n strat i o n s. H um a n R i ght s W a t c h’ s 2000 r e por tf orU z be ki s t a n ga ve a s a n e xa m pl e of5

rel i g i o u s i n t o l eran ce i n th e co u n try an i n ci d en tw h ere an u n reg i st ered B ap t i st m e e tin g w a s r a id e d b y th e p o lic e a n d th e p a r tic ip a n ts w e r e d e ta in e d a n d to r tu r e d . T he 20 00 re po rtw enton t o add thatt orture i n U zbeki st an w as “ rout i ne” a nd that pol i c e m i s c onduc tw e ntunpuni s he d. T he 2002 S t a t e D e partm e ntc ountry r e por tf orU z be ki s t a n s a i d tha tthe gove rnm e ntc ont i nue d t o r e s tr i c tr e l i gi ous f r e e dom buttha tC hr i s t i a ns w ho di d not pr os e l y t i z e “ ge ne r a l l y ha d no pr obl e m s . ” H ow e ve r , a c c or di ng t o the r e por t , the U z be k gove rnm e ntc ont i nue d t o r e qui r e tha tr e l i gi ous gr oups r e gi s t e rw i th the g o v e rn m e n t u s in g “s tr ic t a n d b u r d e n s o m e c r ite r ia ” to ap p r o v e r e lig io u s a c tiv itie s . B ap tis t c h u r c h e s h a d ah a r d tim e r e g is te r in g u n d e rth e s tr ic t c r ite r ia . A n d B ap tis ts w ho pray ed atun re gi st er ed churches had m ee t i ng s broken u p b y the po l i ce , w er e fi ned, and som et i m es i m pri soned. T he re po rtal so no t ed thatre l i gi ou s l i t er ature w a s hi ghl y c e ns or e d. T he 20 03 S t at e D epartm entcoun tryre po rtfor U zbeki st an al so st at ed that

“ C hri st i ans w er e genera l l y w el l t ol er at ed. ” B utthe re po rtt ol d o f an i nci dentw here m e m be r s of

a n unr e gi s t e r e d B apt i s tc hur c h w e r e a rr e s t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d t o pr i s on for t en days and fi ned for cond uct i ng a r el i gi ou s s ervi ce i n a pri vat e hom e. A ft erhear i ng D om l at

j anov ’ s t es t i m on y and re vi ew i ng the do cum ent ary e vi de nc e he s ubm i tt e d, the I J f ound tha tD om l a t

j a nov’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the t oe na i l i nc i de ntw a s “ t o al a r ge e xt e ntr i di c ul ous ” a nd “ not. . . c r e di bl e or6

be l i e vabl e . ” H ow e ve r , the I J a l s o f ound D om l a t

j a nov’ s “ t e s t i m ony t o be be l i e vabl e tha the w a s aB apt i s t . ” A s t o the othe re vi de nc e tha tD om l a t j a nov

“ suff er ed som e a dd i t i on al prob l em s and he w as hara ss ed by ho ol i gans, ” the IJ concl ud ed thatD om l at

j anov “ had n otshow n, t o [hi s] sa t i sf ac t i on , thathe had su ffered p astp ersecu t i o n o f a sev ere n atu re w h i ch w o u l d co n st i tu t e p ast pe r s e c ut i on. ” T he I J a l s o c onc l ude d tha tD om l a t j a nov ha d nots how n tha the ha d a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n i f retu rn ed t o U zb ek i st an . B ecau se D om l at j anov and S ni tko had n otm etthei r burden as t o asy l um , the IJconcl ud ed th a t th e y c o u ld n o t m e e t th e h ig h e rs ta n d a r d r e q u ir e d f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. F in a lly , a s to th e c o u p le ’s c la im f o rC A T r e lie f

, th e I J s a id th a t th e to e n a il i nci dentw ou l d b e s uffi ci entt o con st i tut e t orture. B ut , because the IJfoun d that D om l at j anov ’ s t es t i m on y r egar di ng the t oenai l i nci dentw as no tcr edi bl e, D o m l at j an o v an d S n i tk o h ad n o tsh o w n th atD o m l at j an o v w as su b

j ect ed t o p ast to rtu r e , o rh a d aw e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e to r tu r e , b y th e U z b e kg o v e rn m e n t. T h e c o u p le ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f th e ira s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a n d C A T r e lie f

c la im s to th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls . S p e c if ic a lly a s to the i ra s y l um c l a i m s , D om l a t j a nov a nd S ni tko a r gue d tha tthe I J e rr e d i n c onc l udi ng th a t D o m la tja n o v h a d n o t s u f f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n a n d d id n o t h a v e aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. T h e B I A a d o p te d a n d a f f irm e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n . T h e B I A to o kis s u e w ithDomlatjanov and Snitko’s brief to this Court does not addre ss their claims for CAT 1 relief and addresses only

in passing the ir claims for withholding of removal. They there fore havea ba ndon e d h ereany

issue s th ey

had withre g ard

to t he sec laims . Se eSepulve da v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 7 pa rtof the I J ’ s j us t i f

i c a t i on f orf i ndi ng tha tD om l a t

j a nov’ s t e s t i m ony aboutthe t oe na i l i nc i de ntw a s notc r e di bl e . H ow e ve r , the B I A ul t i m a t e l y “ a gr e e [ d] w i th the Im m i grat i on Judg e that[D om l at j anov ] ’ s vague t es t i m on y [ w as ] of l i m i t ed c r e di bi l i ty . ” T he B I A c onc l ude d tha t , of the r e m a i ni ng e vi de nc e , D om l a t j a nov a nd S n i tk o d i d n o tad eq u at el y su p p o rtth ei r b u rd en o f p ro o f as t o each o f th ei r cl ai m s. D o m latj an o v an d S n itk o n o w p etit io n th is C o u rt fo r r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s deci si on t o d eny thei r a sy l um cl ai m s. T hey argue thatthe B IA and IJ c om m i tt ed 1 tw o erro rs i n d en yi n g th ei r cl ai m s. I. T he c oupl e f

i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng the to e n a il in c id e n t, a f

f irm e d b y th e B I A , w a s n o t s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . T h e g o v er n m en t res p o n d s th at w e d o n o t h av e ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J’s c r e d ib ility f

in d in g b e c au s e D o m la tja n o v a n d S n itk o f a ile d to e x h au s t th e ir a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s by c ha l l e ngi ng the c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i n the i rappe a l t o the B I A. T h e g o v e rn m e n t is c o rr e c t th a t “[ w ]e la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rac la im r a i s e d i n ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w unl e s s the pe t i t i one rha s e xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve8

r e m e di e s w i th r e s pe c tthe r e t o. ” A m a y a - A r tundua gav. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 463 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c uri am ); ac cord 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)(1) (“ A court m a y r e v ie w af

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l o n ly if

th e a lie n h a s e x h au s te d a ll adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es avai l abl e t o the al i en as of ri gh t . ”) T hati s, w e “ l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der c l ai m s thathave no tbeen rai se d b ef ore the B IA . ” S un dar v . I m m ig r a tio n & N a tu r a liz a tio n S e rv ., 3 2 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “T h u s , if a n a lie n f

a ils to c h a lle n g e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n in h is appe a l t o the B I A , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rs uc h ac ha l l e nge i n hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w . ” A m a y a - A rtundua ga , 463 F . 3d a t1250. H e r e , w e ha ve r e vi e w e d D om l a t j a nov a nd S m i tko’ s not i c e of appe a l a nd b rief to th e B IA . In n eith erp lead in g d idth e c o u p le ra ise a ch allen g e to th e I J’s c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ng. A c c or di ngl y , the y ha ve f a i l e d t o e xhaus tthe i ra dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a s t o the c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng on the t oe na i l i nc i de nt , a nd w e do notha ve ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e p a rt o f th e irp e titio n th a t c h a lle n g e s th e c r e d ib ility fi nd i ng here . O ure xhaus t i on a na l y s i s i s notc ha nge d by f a c ttha tthe B I A a ddr e s s e d the c r e d ib ility f

in d in g s u as p o n te in its o r d e ra f f irm in g a n d a d o p tin g th e I J ’s d e c is io n . I n A m a y a - A rtu n d u a g a , th e B I A , a s it d id h e r e , c o n s id e r e d th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility f in d in g e v e n th o u g h th e is s u e w a s n o t r a is e b y th e a lie n in h is ap p e a l to th e B I A . Id. W e s ai d that“ [t ] hi s l ea ves open the qu es t i on w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov er9

ac l a i m w he n a n a l i e n, w i thoute xc us e ore xc e pt i on, f a i l s t o e xhaus ttha tc l a i m , but the B I A none the l e s s c ons i de r s the unde r l y i ng i s s ue s uas pont e . ” I d. A ns w e r i ng the qu es t i on i n the negat i ve, w e hel d thatthe “ the go al s of e xh aust i on ar e bett er s e rve d by ourde c l i ni ng t o r e vi e w c l a i m s ape t i t i one r , w i thoute xc us e ore xc e pt i on, f a i l e d t o pr e s e ntbe f

or e the B I A , e ve n i f

the B I A a ddr e s s e d the unde r l y i ng i s s ue s uas pont e . ” I d. a t1251. T hus , w e c onc l ude d, the e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nti n 8 U . S . C . § 1252( d) ( 1) di ve s t e d us of j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the a l i e n’ s a r gum e ntf or the f i r s tt i m e i n thi s C ourt , e ve n i f r a i s e d s uas pont e by the B I A . I d. L i ke w i s e , de s pi t e the f

a c ttha tthe B I A a ddr e s s e d the I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng in its o r d e ra f

f irm in g a n d a d o p tin g th e I J ’s d e c is io n , w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w D om l a t

j a nov a nd S ni tko’ s a r gum e ntr a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e he r e tha tthe IJ ’ s c re di bi l i ty f

i nd i ng w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. W e there fore d i s m i s s th i s p a rto f

th e c o u p l e ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. D om l a t j a nov a nd S ni tko a l s o c ont e nd tha tthe I J a nd B I A e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tD om l a t

j a nov di d nots uf

f e rpa s tpe r s e c ut i on. T hi s i s s ue w a s r a i s e d be f or e the B IA and w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew i there . W e r evi ew the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng s und er th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, w h ic h m e a n s th a t w e “m u s t a f f irm th e I J ’s d e c is io n if i ti s s up po rt ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1230. “ [ T ] he I J ’ s de c i s i on c a n be10

re vers ed on l y i f the evi dence ‘ com pel s’ a r ea sonabl e f ac tfi nd ert o fi nd otherw i se . ” I d. H er e, the evi dence does notcom pel a c on cl usi on thatD om l at j anov suff

er ed pastpers ec ut i on . W e have s ai d thatpers ec ut i on i s an extre m e c on ce ptthatre qu i re s m or e tha n af

e w i s ol a t e d i nc i de nt s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntori nt i m i da t i on. S i l vav. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 37 –3 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). M er e har as sm entdo es nota m ountt o pe r s e c ut i on. I d. E x cl u d i n g th e t o en ai l i n ci d en t , w h i ch w e m u stg i v en th e B IA ’ s ad v erse c r e d ib ility f

in d in g , D o m la tja n o v h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e h a rm h e s u f f e r e d in U z b e k is ta n b e c au s e o f

h is r e lig io n w a s s e v e r e a n d p e rv a s iv e e n o u g h to c o n s titu te pe r s e c ut i on. G e tt i ng ki c ke d of f the na t i ona l r oc ke tt e a m a nd be i ng thr e a t e ne d by the po l i ce w er e m er e har as sm entand n otpers ec ut i on . S ee S epul veda, 40 1 F . 3d at 1 2 3 1 (“ m en aci n g t el ep h o n e cal l s an d th reat s . . . d o n o tri se t o th e l ev el o f p ast pers ec ut i on ”) . O nl y tw o o f the i nci dent s D om l at j anov desc ri bed, w hi ch t oo k p l ac e thr e e y e a r s apa rt , i nvol ve d a ny phy s i c a l vi ol e nc e t a r ge t e d a thi m , a nd the y w e r e not s e ve r e e nough t o c om pe l af i ndi ng tha tD om l a t

j a nov w a s pe r s e c ut e d. C f . R ui z v. G onz a l e s , ___ F . 3d ___, 2007 W L 510147, *4 & n. 2 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 20, 2007) (hol di ng thatre cord com pel l ed pers ec ut i on fi nd i ng w here al i en had b ee n threa t ened, beat en on tw o o cc as i on s and then k i dn apped for ei gh t ee n d ay s) ; se e a l s o T a w n v. A s hc r of

t , 363 F . 3d 740, 742–43 ( 8th C i r . 2004) ( tw o be a t i ngs f our11

y e a r s apa rtw hi c h r e s ul t e d i n s w e l l i ng di d notc ons t i tut e pe r s e c ut i on) ; D a nda n v. A shcr oft , 33 9 F . 3d 56 7, 57 3– 74 (7th C i r. 20 03 ) ( no tpers ec ut i on w here al i en w as det ai ned for three days and b ea t en w hi ch re sul t ed i n a sw ol l en fa ce ). B ec ause the re cord do es no tcom pel a f i nd i ng thatD om l at

j anov w as p e r s e c u t e d i n U z b e k i s t a n , h e a n d h i s w i f e a r e n o te l i g i b l e f

o ra s y l u m. Se e 8 U . S. C. §§ 11 58 (b)( 1)(A ) ( on l y r ef ug ee s e nt i t l ed t o asy l um ), 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A ) ( re fugee d efi n ed i n p artas o n e w h o i s p ersecu t ed o n acco u n to f h i s rel i g i o n ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e d e n y th e i rp e t i t i o n t o r e v i e w th e d e n i a l o f th e a s y l u m c l a i m. PE TI TI ON DI SM I SS ED I N PART AND DENI ED I N PART.