FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Nov emb er 30, 20 05 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK

Honora ble C. Ashley

Roy al, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1415 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AD oc ke t N o. A 79- 436- 962 YUE YING L IU, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 30, 200 5) Before BIRC H and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and RO YA L , D istrict Judg e. * PE R CU RIA M:2

Y ue Y ing L iu, anativ e an d c iti ze n of Ch ina , appe al s th e Bo ar d of Im m igration Appeals’ s (“ BIA ’ s”) af firm ance of an Im

m igration Ju dge’ s (“ IJ’ s”) de ci sio n de ny ing he r cl ai m s f or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the Im m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A” ) and Convention Against T orture (“ CAT ”). A fter arriving in th e U nited States without docum entation, Liu told an asy lum officer that she was a

Christian and had been persecuted because of her religion. H owever , in her subs equent asy lum application, Liu listed her re ligio n as

“N /A , ” ind ic at ed

that sh e ha d be enpe rs ec ute d f or havin g th re e ch ildre n, and s ai d that she would be forcibly sterilized if she w ere repatriate d. T he IJ found that L iu’ s te sti m ony

w as not c re dib le , de nie d he r ap pli catio n f or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the I N Aand C A T , and p er m an en tly barr ed he r fr om re ce i v i n g an y i m

m i g ra t i o nb en ef

i t s u n d erth e I NA. Th e B IA af fi rmedth e I J ’s de nia l of a sy lum and w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, but

r ev er se d th e IJ ’ s de ci sio n ins of ar a s it barr ed he r fr om r ec ei vin g f

uture be ne fi ts. T his appe al f oll ow ed . On appeal, Liu f

irst argues that the IJ err ed by ref using to credit her testim ony . Liu concedes that she lied to the asy lum officer , but contends that her te sti m ony a t the m er its he ar ing w as both in te rn al ly c onsi ste nt and c onsi ste nt w ith her asy lum

application. L iu also conten ds that her testim ony to the asy lum

officer shou ld notbe held against her because “ inadequate translation was provided.” InBe cause L iu has not argued on appe al that the I J err ed by failingto cre dit the 1 photocopied docume nts which she submitted, she has wa ived any such ar gument. See Mohammed v. Ashcr oft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1248 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (statingin an immigration case that arguments not made in a pe titioner’s brief are there by

waived) . 3 he r se co nd a ssi gnm en t of e rr or , L iu c ont en ds tha t, be ca use she f ac es ahig h r isk

of

“ be at ing s or

tor tur e” if r ep atri at ed , the I J e rr ed

by de ny ing he r cl ai m s f

or wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA an d C AT. 1

I. T he C re di bi lit y D et er m in at ion Inc as es inv olv ing r eque sts f or a sy lum , w e re vie wonl y

the BI A ’ s de ci sio n ex ce pt t o th e ex te nt tha t the BI Ae xpr es sly a dopt ed the I J’ s de ci sio n. N re kav. United States A tty . G en., 408 F.3d 1361 , 1368 (11th Cir. 2005). B ecause the I J m ad e the de te rm inatio n th at L iu’ s te sti m ony

w as not c re dib le and tha t sh e w as not en t i t l edt o as ylu m

o r w i th h o l d i n g o f r emo v al , o u r r ev i ew wi l l fo cu s o nth e I J ’s de ci sio n. S ee id. T o th e ex te nt tha t the de ci sio n be loww as ba se d up on a le ga l de te rm inatio n, we reviewit de novo . S ee id. H owever , “ adm inistrative findin gs of fact are co nc lus ive unl es s any

r ea sona ble a dj udi cator

w oul d be c om

pe lle d to c onc lud e to the c ontrary . ” I N A§ 24 2( b) (4 )( B) ; 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ; a cc or d A nti pova v. Un i t edSt at es At ty. Gen ., 3 9 2 F. 3 d1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( s t at i n g th atan IJ ’s factual deter

m ination s m

ust be uph eld if they

are suppo rted by

“ reasonable, subs tantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole”). When4

the I J a cc ur at el y

poi nts to inc onsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n an a ppl ic an t’ s te sti m ony

and he r pr ev iou s st at em en ts, w e w ill not sub sti tut e our

own c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n fo r that of the I J. D -M uhum ed

v. U nit ed S tate s A tty . G en . , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 819 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ). Fu rt h erm o re , wh en an IJ m ak es a d et ai l edfi n d i n g th atan al i en ’s te sti m ony is not c re dib le , thi s de te rm inatio n, standi ng a lon e, m ay be suf fi ci en t t o supp ort the de nia l of

a sy lum . S ee id. An alien is eligible for asy lum if such alien m eets the IN A’ s definition of a

“ re fu ge e. ” S ee I N A§ 20 8( b) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( b) (1 ). I n m ost c as es , to de m onstrate “ re fu ge e” status und er the I N A , an a lie n m

ust sho wthat sh e is o uts ide of he r co untry

be ca use of “pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n ac co unt of r ac e, r el igi on, natio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or polit ical opinio n.” IN A § 101(a)( 42)(A) , 8 U .S .C. § 1101 (a)( 42)(A) ; accord Sep ul ve dav. Un it edSta te s At ty. Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). H ow ev er , Co ngr es s ha s a lso pr ovi de d th at any pe rs on who h as be enf

or ce d to unde rg o an a

bortio n or

ste ri liz at ion , or

w ho h as aw el l- fo unde d f ear that sh e w ill be force d to un dergo such a procedure in the future, is eligible for asy lum . See IN A§ 10 1( a) (4 2) (A ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a lie n “ carr ie s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng s tatut or

y ‘ re fu ge e’ status . ” D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 8.5

Inthe ins tant c as e, L iu o ri gin al ly tol d th e as y lum

of fi ce r that sh e fl ed

Ch ina because of re ligio us persecution, but later claim ed that she fled to avoid forced sterilization. L iu’ s argum ent that the asy lum interview should be dis regarded be ca use of dif fi cu lti es w iththe tr an slatio n is w ith out m er it be ca

use she e xpr es sly sa iddu rin g t he asylu m

in te rv ie w th atsh e u nd ers to odth e tr an sl at or ’s qu es ti on s. Furthe rm or e, L iu’ s a sy lum appl ic at ionw as not

f ull y c onsi ste nt w ithhe r te sti m ony at the m er its he ar ing . Whil e L iu i ndi cate d inhe r ap pli catio n th at she ha d no t pa ss edth ro ug h a ny thi rdco un tri es on he r way fro m Ch in a to th e Uni te d S ta te s, she late r te sti fi ed

that sh e ha d pa sse d th ro ugh T ha iland and p oss ibl y Ja pan or K or ea . I nde ed , he r as y lum appl ic at ionw as int er

na lly inc onsi ste nt b ec au se , de spi te say ing she ha d no t pa sse d th ro ugh any thi rd c ountry e n r out e to the U nit ed

S tate s, itsai d t ha t s he lef

t Ch in a ap pr ox im at el y

si x m on th s b efo re h er arriv al in Mi am i. Given L iu’ s num erous incons istent statem ents, the IJ’ s refusal to cr edit her testim ony wa s not un reasonable. See IN A § 242(b)(4)( B), 8 U. S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ( statin g th at “ adm ini str at ive f

ind ing s of

f ac t are c onc lus ive unl es s an y reas on ab le ad

jud ic at orwou ldbe co m

pe ll edto co nc lu de to th e co nt rary”). Thus, bec ause her testim ony wa s not credible, and L iu does no t claim on appeal that the re w as any

oth er sub stanti al e vid en tiary

ba sis upo n whic h sh e shou ld h av e6

re ce ive d a sy lum , she ha s no t c ar ri ed he r bur de n of

pr ovi ng tha t sh e ha d a re as ona ble f ear of be ing ste ri liz ed

or oth er w ise pe rs ec ute d. II. Wi th ho ld in g of

R em oval W e apply the sam e standard of re view to w ithho lding of rem oval claim s as to a sy lum c la im s. N re ka , N o. 04- 1000 9 m an . op. a t 14 ( ap ply ing sam e standard of reviewto both ty

pes of claim s). Ac cordingly , the I J’ s conclusio ns of law are re vie w ed de nov o whil e his f

ind ing s of

f ac t w ill be uph el d “unl es s any r ea sona ble adj udicator would be com pelled to conclud e to the contrary .” IN A § 242(b)(4)( B); 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ; a cc or d A nti pova , 392 F . 3d at 12 61. T o ob ta in w ith hol din g of r em ova l un de r the I N A , an a lie n m ust pr ove it is m or e lik el y

than no t tha t, w er e she r ep atri at ed , he r lif e or f re ed om w oul d be threatened on account of a protected char acter istic. Me ndoza v. U nited States A tty . G en . , 327 F . 3d 1 283, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . T o ob ta in w ith hol din g of rem oval und er the C AT , an alien m ust sh ow it is m ore likely than not th at, we re she returned, she would be tortured by or w ith the acquiescence of an off icial pe rs on. D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9. B ec au se the standard f or obt ai nin g withholdi ng of rem oval und er the INAor CA T is m ore stringent than th e standard that applies to asy lum

claim s, ineligibilit y

for asy lum

generally precludes7

w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. A l N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 129 2- 93, 130 3 (11th Cir. 2001). Inthe ins tant c as e, by

de ny ing L iu’ s a sy lum

r eque st, the I J im

pli ci tly f ound that L iu h ad

not de m onstrate d ar ea sona

ble f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. B ec au se Liu did not carry

her burden of showing that she had a reasonable fear of future pe rs ec uti on, it

f oll ow s th at

she did not c ar ry the hig he r bur de n of

pr ovi ng i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atsh e wil l b e p ers ecu te d o r to rtu redif s he is rep at ria te d. A cc or din gly , the I J di d no t e rr by de ny ing L iu’ s r eque st f

or w ith hol din g of rem ov al un de r th e INA an d C AT. Hav in g re vi ewedth e p art ie s’ bri efs an d t he reco rdan d fo un d n o e rro r, we de ny Liu’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.