The Honor able Thoma s M. Rose, United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the S outhern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. United Nations Conven t i o n Against Torture and Other Cruel, I nhuman or De g rading 1 Treatment or P unishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. G AOR 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51 a t 19 7, U. N. Do c . A /39 /51 (1 98 4) ; se e als o implementing r eg ulations at 8 C.F.R. § 208.18.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0671n.06 No. 09-3895 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
OL GA SHI PI L OVA, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

BEF ORE: GI L MAN and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and ROSE, District J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Olg a Shipilova, a native and citiz en of Russia, petitions for review of an or der of

the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA” or “B oard” ) aff irming an immigration judg e’s ( “I J ”) de nial of her

a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l, and pr ote c tio n und e r t he Con ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture (“CAT” ). Shipil ova ar g ues that the B I A er red by adopting and af

firming : (1) the I J ’s 1 fi nd ingthat sh e wa s n ot c re dib le ; and (2 ) t he I J’s f ind ingthat he r a sylum

c la im w a s in su ff

ic ie ntl y
corr oborate d. Be cause eac h of these a rg uments lack mer it, we deny the petition for re view.No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 2 - I. Shipil ova ente red the United States on J uly 2, 2002, as an e x chang e visitor with authorization to remain in the country for a tempora ry period not to exceed O ctober 10, 2002. On Fe bruar

y 24, 2003, Shipil o v a ap p l i ed for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the CAT. The g ov e rnme nt s ub se qu e ntl y se rv e d Sh ipi lov a

wi th a no tic e to app e ar ( “ NT A” ), c ha rg inghe r w ith
remova bility under § 237( a)( 1)(B ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA ”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( B) , for r emaining in the United States bey ond October 10, 2002, without authorization. I n her a sy lum application, Shipil ova asse rted th at she would be subjec t to persec ution beca use of h er Baptist relig ion if she re turned to Russia. She explained that, after she “star ted attending [religious ] s er v i ce s[,] ” she w as involved in “numer ous conflicts and w as beaten up a number of times due to [her] relig ious [adher ence ]” by “Russian pro-f

ascists, Cossac[k] s – special para -military

g roup of population that perse cute ever y one who is not Orthodox and fanatics of the Orthodox C hristian Denomination .

. . .” Moreove r, Shipilova indicated that “pe rsec utions of our relig ion is traditional in Russia” and that “ther e is no hope that it will be stopped and the g overnme nt does nothing to stop it .” Shipil ova also include d a personal s tatement with her asy lum application further descr ibing her ba ckg round. She explained that like “most Soviets” she was r aised a n atheist. Howe ver, a fter her f ather died, she be came depre ssed and “ beca me close” to her pa terna l gr andpar ents who int ro du c e d h e r t o th e B a

pti st f a ith . Sh ipi lov a

ind ic a te d th a t sh e fo rm a lly jo in ed the B a pti st cong reg ation in October

2000.No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 3 - Mo re ov e r, Shi pil ov a

re c ounte d f

ive inc ide nts of

re lig iou s p e rs e c uti on

that she a lle g e dly
e xpe ri e nc e d w hil e in R

us sia : On Novembe r 5, 200 1 Iwas attacked w hile profe ssing [the] word of G-d in the str e e ts o f K

ra sn od ar. Iwa s a

pp ro a c he d b y

Cos sa c ks , the pa

ra mil ita ry mig hty org anization based exactly in the are a whe re I

live d i n R u s s i a. They

took all the literature and bea

t me up by

their traditional we apon: whips. Iwent to the loca l police and tried to f

ile a repor t but [was] reje cted by the police off icer who told [ me] that police could do nothing t o p re v ent Baptists from the attac ks or punish the a tta c ke rs be c a

us e the Cos sa c ks are ve ry

po we rf ul a nd [the ] pol ic e [have ] no s tr e ng th to fig ht them. On J une 1, [2001] Iwas [on] the bus and star ted talking about G-d w ith another wo man. Ski nh e a ds wh o we re [on] the bu s . . . ov e rh e ard wh a t w e we re ta lki nga

bo ut. T h e w o ma

nIta lk e d to an d Iw e r e b e a te n

u p an d thr o w no u ts id e b y

s k inh e a d s . We we nt t o the ne are st pol ic e of fi c e and we re tol d th a t [th e ] pol ic e wo uld no t [be ] ab le to help us. On Se pte mbe r 9, 20 01 Iwa s in the vil la g e wh e re my

g ra nd pa re nts liv e and

we nt t o the chur ch with them. We wer e stoned while leaving the church. The attacker s were skinheads and the other village rs wer e supporting them. Iand [a] few other young churc h attendants ra

n to the local police office

. The office r told us that he could not help bec ause he is alone. My g randpa rents complained to the highe r authorities but wer e told that it was u s el es s t o complain bec ause the relig ion is considered nontraditional for Russia. On Fe bruar

y 12, 2002 Iwas be aten up while di stributing li terature on the bus stop. Iwas a pproac hed by

[a] police office r who confiscated the literature in spite [ of] the fac t that our churc h had per mission t o stay at t he place. When Itold the office rs that Iwas leg ally

distributing the literature ther e I was be aten up. I complained to the pastor and he contac ted authorities bu t t h e ch i ef of police told [hi m] that [t he] office r[s] who are responsible for the are a know better what to do and he did not care about per mits. The pastor ca lled [a] lawy er but [the] l awyer to l d [hi m] that it was prac tically

impossibl e to bring police to [] justice. On Marc h 4 , 2 00 0 I

wa s atta c ke d in

the c ountr

y wi th [m y ] sis te r i n Ch ri st .
. . . T his is the most terrifying inc ident Ihad and it is extremely difficult for me to w rite.

. . . Her and me we re attacked by skinheads and e x tremely abused. We we re s aved by the people w ho lived [] there and who took us fr om the tree s.No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

T h e r ec o rd

al s o co n t ai n s t h e a s y l u m o ff i ce r’ s h a n d w r i t t en n o t es o f t h at m ee t i n g. 2 I mportantly , those notes indicate t hat Shipilova stated that her f ather died in 1999 and that the incident in which she w as tied to a tre e occ urre d in March 2002. - 4 - On Marc h 2 0, 20 03 , a

n a sylum off

ic e r i nte rv ie we d Sh ipi lov a re g ard inghe r a sylum

c la im. At that int er v i ew , s h e was acc ompanied by an interpr eter

that she found throug h a fr iend. The interview w as not rec orded or transcr ibed, but the asylum officer prepa red a summary

of the meeting

. I n his summary , the asylum officer stated that he had “ serious doubts” as to Shipilova’s 2

c re dib ili ty . Sp e c if

ic a lly , h e no te d th a t: Th e a pp lic ant co uld no t pro vid e c on sis te nt, de ta ile d inf or ma tio n ab ou t [he r] o ve ra ll claim. S he was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with her a ffidavit in that she te sti fi e d th a t it

wa s h e r fathe r’ s d e a th i n 1 99 9 th a t pr omp te d h e r t o jo in t he B a pti st Church upon her

return f rom her g randpa

rent’s home in October

1999. She, howeve r, also testified that it was in Oc tober 2000 whe n she joined t h e chur ch. When asked to cla

rify the inconsistency , she indicate d that it could have mer ely been a mistake. He r re sponse is n o t seen a s rea sonable in that she c lear ly indicated that it was her f

ather ’s death in 1999 that so aff ecte d her a

nd cause d her to join the chur ch imm e diate ly

fo ll owi ng her

re tur n f ro m he r g ra

nd pa re nts . H ow e ve r, sh e c le arl y ind ic a te s in

he r a ff ida vit that sh e joi ned th e churc h in 20 00 . T his inc on sis te nc y is seen a s material a s it s et s the tone for her ove rall cla im of being a B aptist and thus suffe ring harm be cause of her relig ion. I n a dd iti on , th e a sylum

of fi c e r f ound that Sh ipi lov a ’s te sti mony re g ard inghe r fi ve inc ide nts of a lle g e d r e lig iou s p e rs e c uti on wa s n ot d e ta ile d and in st ead se e me d “ ru sh e d. ” Whe n a sk e d to clar ify or add detail, Shipil ova “would repe atedly say , ‘all B aptists are tre ated with such c ontempt.’” I ndeed, w hen aske d to provide e ven basic details, like the name of her churc h, the asylum officer
no te d th a t Sh ipi lov a

“ str ug g le d” and

that he r r e sp on se s w e re “ a g a in . . . lac kin g in c on sis te nt d e ta il to be dee med cr edible.”No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 5 - Th e a sylum of

fi c e r furt he r fo un d Ship ilo va ’s “ te sti mony a bo ut h e r t ime wi th t

he c hurc h” to be “not cre dible in that she did not provide log ical, consistent, and de tailed testimony .” He thought it “ log ic a lly

inc on sis te nt” that Sh ipi lov a , “ a s a ne wc ome r t o th e fa ith , w ou ld b e ta sk e d w ith ‘r e c ru iti ng ’ p e op le on ly

we e ks a ft e r [s he wa s] ba pti zed ” and

no te d th a t Sh ipi lov a was un a ble to explain how this was possible. Due to his credi b i l i ty finding s, the asylum officer conclude d that Shipil ova had f

ailed to meet he r burde n of establishing elig ibilit y for a sy lum. On Fe bruar

y 27, 2007, Shipil ova submitted an update d, unsigne d persona l statement, which larg ely rec apped the incidents in h er first statement, while addingnew de tails, but omi tting date s
c on c e rn ingtho se inc ide nts . In h e r u pd a te d s ta te me nt, sh e ind ic a te d th a t sh e joi ne d t he B a pti st cong reg ation in October

2001, rath er t h an in Octobe r 2000, as indicated in her or igina l personal statement. Shipilova also rec ounted a time whe n the dea n of her university

called he r to his office to reprimand he r for

talking a

bout God, and then de prived he r of he r mont h l y al l owanc e as punis hme nt. F ur

the rm or e , Sh ipi lov a

ind ic a te d that a g ir l wh o us e d to be he r fr ie nd re fu se d to ta lk to her be cause she wa s a B aptist and spit in her fac e. At her r emoval hearing , Shipil ova testified that she came to the United States bec ause she
wa nte d to e xpre ss h e r b e lie f i n h e r f a ith

. S hi pi lo va indic a te d th a t sh e joi ne d th e Rus sia n B a pti st churc h in October 2001 when she was twenty -two. She first stated t hat s he was baptized in “2002,” and then sa id, “I apolog ize I was ba ptiz ed in May

11, 2003[.] ” When aske d ag ain on what date she was baptiz ed, S hipilova responde d that she wa s baptized on “May 11, 2001[,] ” and the n confirme d it actually occur red on “ May

11, 2002[.] ”No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

Shipil ova wa s born on September 17, 1979. 3 - 6 - The g overnme nt’s attorney asked Shipilova sever al questions, beg inning with what y ear her fathe r died. Shipilova responde d that he died on August 18, 1998, when she woul d have be en eig hteen y ear s old. When asked why she told the asylum officer that her f ather died in Aug ust of 3 1999, Shipil ova stated that she did not have a profe ssional interpre ter at the t ime of the intervie w, but instead broug ht an int erpr eter based on a fr iend’s re commendation and that she was not conf ident in his translation abili ties. Next, S hipilova rec onfirmed that she joined the B aptist church in Oc tober 20 01 . Sh e sa id t

hat he r o ri g ina l pe rs on a l st a te me nt i nd ic a ted sh e joi ne d in Oc tob e r 2 00 0 b e c a

us e she wa s thinking of joining then and attended chur ch “some times.” Shipil ova wa s unable to provide dates or supporting documents for t h e majority

of the inc ide nts of

ha ra ssm e nt s he re po rt ed in he r a sylum a pp lic a tio n. Whe n a sk e d to re c ount t he fi rs t inc ide nt t hat ha pp e ne d to he r, Shi pil ov a

state d th a t “ I ’m

no t ve ry c on fi de nt a

bo ut date s b e c a

us e it
was a long time ag o . . . .” Shipilova was also aske d to provide the date of the inc ident in which she claims she wa s hara ssed by a police of

fice r at a bus stop, to which she replied, “ [i ]t ’s bee n so many times beca

use it’s not only

one day .” When aske d i f s h e reme mbere d what y ear the incident
occur red, she stated t hat s he was “not confident [of] the dates beca use I have a

lot of examples and
case s and it’s very

harmful a nd very stressful .

. . .” Wit h reg ard to the inc ident wher e Shipilova was tied to a tree , Shipil ova indicate d that it happened in April or May of 2000, which would have bee n befor e she joined the churc h in O ctober of 2001 or e ven thoug ht of joining the c hurch in Oc tober ofNo. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

Howeve r, S h i p i l o v a al so testified that she did not rec eive medic al treatment for her back 4 injury afte r the c hurch stoning incident. I t is possi ble that she sought tr e a tme nt, bu t did no t rece ive treatment. The B oard a lso noted that, on appea l, Shipi lov a s u b mi tt e d s ever al new doc uments, including 5 an extract of her medical rec ords from a hospital in Russia, letters from her pastor and f

ellow chur ch members in t h i s co u ntry , a psy cholog ical re port, and c ountry conditions for Russia. The B oard explained that it considered the a dditional evidence submitt ed on appea l only as a possible basis for rema nd beca use the B oard is an appellate body whose function is to revie w, not to cre ate, a rec ord. I t th e n c on c lud e d th a t the e vid e nc e wa s n ot s uf fi c ie nt t o s ho w that Sh ipi lov a ha d ma de a

pr ima fa c ie case for the relief reque sted. I n so doing, the Boa rd noted that Shipil ova failed to e x plain why her r e c e n t l y s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e c o u l d

n o th a v e b e e np r o d

u c e d a tt h e t i m e o f

h e r h e ar i n g b e f

o r e t h e I J.
- 7 - 20 00 . F ina lly , Sh ipi lov a

te sti fi e d th a t she we nt to the do c tor “ a ft e r ea c h inc ide nt” bu t th a t th e y did
no t g ive he r m e dic a l r e po rt s th a t sh e c ou ld p ro vid e to t he c ourt
. 4 On Marc h 2 8, 20 07 , the I J de nie d Ship ilo va ’s re qu e st fo r as y lum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, and prote ction under the CAT. The I J found that Shipilova was not cre dible due to her “inconsistent and vague” te stimony

reg ardingthe date he r fathe r died, the date she be came a B aptist, and sever al of the incide nts in which she was a lleg edly perse cuted for her Ba

ptist beliefs. The I J also opined that Shipil ova’s de meanor

was unc onvincing in light of he r “non-r esponsive” te stimony , which re veale d evidentiar y g aps further undermining her credibility

. I n addition, the I J found t hat Shipilova lacked
corr oboration for

her c laims. On J uly

2, 2009, t h e Boa

rd af firmed the I J ’s denial of

Shipil ova’s reque st for re lief. 5 Shipil ova timely

petitions for revie w.No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 8 - II. “When the B I A adopts the I J ’s re asoning and supplements the I J ’s opinion, that opinion, as supplemented by

the B I A, bec omes the basis for revie w.” Zhao v. Holder , 5 69 F .3 d 2 38 , 2 46 (6 th Cir. 2009). We “dire ctly revie w[] the decision of t he I J while consider ing the additional comment made by the B I A.” Id. (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). We rev iew questions of lawde novo and f actua l findings unde r the substantial evide nce standard. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009)

. “F actua l f indings a re r eviewe d under a subst antial evidence standard in which we uphold a B I A deter mination as long a s it is s upported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a w hole” a nd are

“ c o n c lu s iv e ” u n le s s “ an y r e a s o n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o mp e ll e d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a r y [. ]” Zhao , 569 F.3d at 247 (internal quotation mar ks and citation omitted). Asy lum may

be g rante d to an alien who qua lifies as a “re fug ee,” a ter m defined a s one “w ho is unable or unwilling to return to . . . [her home c ountry ] because of perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of perse cution on acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or pol itical opinion[ .]” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)( 1)(A) , 1101(a) (42)( A). An applicant for a sy lum bears the burde n of demonstrating that “ perse cution is a re asonable possibil ity ” if she r eturne d to her country of orig in. Pe rk

ov ic v . I NS , 33 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An applica nt is not required to demonstra te that she will probably

be per secute d if returne d beca

use “[ o]ne can cer

tainly have a well-founded fear of an eve nt happeningwhen ther e is less than a 50% c hance of the oc curr ence taking place .” INS v. Cardoza-Fonsec a , 480 U.S. 421,No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 9 - 431 (1987). The applicant’ s testimony , if deeme d cre dible, may be suff icient to sustain her burde n of proof without corrobor ation. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)

. Even if not entitled to asylum, an alien may secur e withholding of remova l if she ca n show that her “ lif

e or fr e e do m wou ld be thr e a te ne d in th a t c ountr y [to w hic h s he wo uld

be se nt] b e c a

us e of the a lien’s ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soci al gro u p, or political op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 12 31 (b )( 3) (A ); ac c or d 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). The pe titioner must establish a “cle ar probability of per secution[.] ” IN S v . S te v ic , 467 U.S. 407, 413 (1984). To mee t this st andar d, the applica

nt must demonstrate that “it i s m o re likely than not” she w ill be persec uted upon her return. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.16(b)(2)

. Unlike an a

pplication for a sy lum, however , a g rant of a n alien’s a

pplication for wi thh old ingis n ot a

ba sis fo r a dju stm e nt to leg a l per mane nt re sid e nt s ta tus , f

a mil y members a

re not g rante d derivative status, and it only prohibits re moval of the p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e c o u n t r

y o f r i s k , b u td o e s n o tp r o h i b i tr e m o v a l t o a n o n - r i s k c o u n t r y. Fur thermore , a g reater qua ntum of proof is re quired a s to the likeliho o d of p e r s e c u t i o ni nt h e c o u n t r

y o f r i s k i n o r d e r t o e s t a

b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r w i t h h o l d i n g . In oth e r w or ds , th e c ourt s c on sid e r t he same fa c tor s to de te rm ine e lig ib il it y fo r b oth asylum and withholding, b u t i n t he ca se of withholding , a hig her pr obability of perse cution is require d. Cas te lla no -C

ha c on v . I NS , 341 F.3d 533, 545 ( 6th Cir. 2003). To be e ligible f

or CAT protec tion, the applica n t m u s t “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she w ould be tortured if remove d to th e p ro p o s ed co u n t ry of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .1 6( c )( 2) ; see Ali v. Reno , 237 F.3d 591, 597 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (def ining a nd discussing “ torture” ). We w ill up ho ld t

he B I A’ s de c isi on c on c e rn ing CA T pr ote c tio n un le ss it is “ manif e stl y c on tr a ry

to the law[.]” Al i , 237 F.3d at 596 (internal quotation mar ks and citation omitted). “Thus, the B I A’sNo. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

As an ini tia l ma tte r, the B I A did no t e rr in a ff ir min g the I J’s a dv ers e cr e dib ili ty 6 de te rm inatio n, wh ic h w a s b a se d in pa rt on the re c or d of the a sylum

int e rv ie w. Th e Se c on d Ci rc uit a c c ur a te ly

de sc ri be d th e B I A’ s st and ard s in thi s r e g ard

wh e n it state d: Whil e the r ecor d of an a sy lum interview is more re l i ab l e whe n it describes the specific questions asked or r ecor ds the interview verbatim, an inter view re cord e ven without such assuranc es of r eliability never theless m eets the minimum standard, a nd it m ay be re lie d o n a s a

ba sis fo r a

n a dv ers e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n a s lo nga s it contains a “ meaning ful, clea r, and re liable summary

of the stateme nts made by [t he applicant] at the interview.” See M aladho Djehe Diallo v. Gonzale s , 445 F.3d 624, 6 3 1 -3 3 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g M

a tt e r o f S- S -, 21 I . & N . Dec . 121 (B I A 1995)) (interna l quotations omi tted). Kangyi W

en v. H older , 343 F. App’ x 650, 651 (2d Cir. 2009) (unpublished)

. We have re vie we d the a sylum of fi c e r’ s a sse ssm e nt a

nd the ha nd wr itt e n n ote s a

pp e nd e d to it. The assessment memora ndum is t y

p ed and summarizes the interview and the a sy lum officer ’s fi nd ing s, inc lud ing his c on c lus ion that Shi pil ov a wa s no t c re dib le . T he ha nd wr itt e n n ote s a

pp e a r t o trac k a question and a

nswer f ormat. Thus, it was n o t er ror f or the I J to consider these notes and deter mine that Shipil ova wa s not cre dible beca use her persona l statements and subseque nt testimony wer e inconsistent with her inter view with the asy

lum officer

. - 10 - deter mination should be upheld unless evidenc e not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but indeed

c om pe ls it.” Zhao , 569 F.3d at 247 (internal quotation mar ks and citation omitted). III
. Shi pil ov a argue s th a t no ne of

the a lle g e d in c on sis te nc ie s re lie d on by the B I A a nd I J cou ld be viewe d as attempts to en h an ce her c laims of perse cution and many should be seen me rely

as difficulties in reme mbering the exact dates of events that oc curr ed y ear s ag o. Moreove r, Shipilova
c on te nd s th a t th e B I A a

nd I J er re d in re lyingon

the un ve ri fi e d no tes o f t he a sylum

of fi c e r i n
as s es s i n g her c redibility

. Finally , Shipil ova ar g ues that the B I A and I J err ed in finding that her 6No. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

The REAL

I D Act modified the standard g overnin g cre dibilit y deter minations and now 7 pr ov ide s th a t suc h fi nd ing s sh ou ld b e “ ba se d o n th e ‘t ota lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s’ and

take int o acc ount ‘all rele vant fa ctors.’” El-Moussa v. H older , 5 6 9 F. 3 d

2 5 0 , 2 5 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii)). - 11 - asylum claim was insufficie ntly corr oborate d. We disag ree an d af fi rm the B I A’s denia l of Shipil ova’s a

pplication for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the CAT. “[T] he I J ’s deter

mination of [S hipilo v a ’s] credibility is reviewe d under the highly defe rential substantial e vidence standard, and is r ever sed only if any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .” B ah v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 637, 640 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Be cause Shipil ova’s asylum a pplication prec eded the ena ctment of the REA L I D Ac t of 20 05 , Pub

. L
. No
. 10 9- 13 , 11 9 Stat. 23 1, the I J’s ad vers e cred ibility de te rm inatio n “ ‘m

us t be su pp or te d by sp e c if

ic re a so ns [an d] .

. . mus t be ba se d on issu e s tha t g o to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s cla im.’” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 7 Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004)). Discre pancie s have no bear ing on a n applicant’ s
cre dibilit y unless they serve to e nhance the applicant’ s claim of per secution. Sy lla , 388 F.3d at 926. Speculation and c onjecture provide inade quate ba ses for an adverse cre dibilit y deter mination, which must inst ead be supported by substantial evidence

. Liti , 411 F.3d at 637. I n the prese nt c ase, both the I J and BIA chronic led numerous discre pancie s in the evidenc e. Specifica lly , they

noted that Shipil ova was inconsistent a s to: (1) when he r father died; (2) when she subsequently

joined a B aptist church in Russia; (3) w hen her literature was take n, and she w as beaten
and c ur se d at w hil e pr of

e ssi ngthe wo rd

of Go d in the s tre e ts; (4 ) w he n h e r f ir st e nc ounte r w ith Cossacks occ urre d; (5) whe n skinheads assa ulted her on a

bus fo r d i s cussi ng her r elig ion with aNo. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

More o ver, the I J proper ly found that Shipilova’s demea nor wa s not convincing . Her e, 8 contra ry to Shipi lova’s asse rtions, the I J speci fi ca lly explained that Shipi lova’s testimony was at t i m es n o n -r es p o n s i v e t o t h e qu es t i o n as k ed an d t h at s h e o cc as i o n al l y h adgre at d i ff

i cu l t y an s we ri n g. “The I J is in the best positi on to determine c redibility based on the demea nor of the w itness and the presen t ati on of testimony .” See D iallo v. Holder , 312 F. App’ x 790, 801 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). - 12 - fellow pa sseng er a

nd pushed them out of the bus re sulting in bruises all over her body ; (6) whe n and how many times a police office r confiscated the relig ious materials that she wa s distributi ng at a bus stop and beat her; (7) when she and her g randpa rents we re stoned by skinheads as they wer e leaving churc h; (8) whe ther she soug ht any medical treatment for her injure d back; a nd (9) whe n she wa s tied to a tree
. These se vera l examples go to the hear t of Shipil ova’s c laim and demonstrate the numerous inconsistencies be tween Shipilova’s testimony , asylum interview, and w ritten statements. S ee Singh

v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 402- 03 (6th Cir. 2005) (c oncluding that adver se cr edibility finding was
s u p p o rt e d b y k e y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e nana s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o nan d

a l i e n ’ s t e s t i m o n y

w h e r e IJ
re je c te d a lie n’ s e xplanatio n f or inc on sis te nc ie s) ; Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 749-50 (6th Cir. 20 08 ) ( stat in g t hat th e c omp le te la c k o f s pe c if ic ity in a n a pp lic a tio n ju sti fi e s th e I J’s s ke pti c ism ab o u t th e v a li d it

y o f th o s e c la im s )

. “ U n d o u b te d ly , th e s e ar e th e k in d s o f tr a u mati c e v ents that an ind ivi du a l ma

y fo rg e t th e e xac t de ta ils of ; a t the same tim e , ho we ve r, the se are sig nif ic ant a nd lik e ly memorable events. Such a wide discre pancy

in testimony

. . . demonstrates that there w as substantial evidenc e supporting the I J ’s adver se cre dibilit y finding .” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F .3 d 3 90 , 3 95 (6 th

8 Cir . 2 00 6) . B e c a

us e the I J wa s n ot u

nr e a so nable in fi ndingtha t Sh ipi lov a

fa ile d to e xpla in

a de qu a te ly

the a pp a re nt i nc on sis te nc ie s in

he r te sti mony re g ard ing e ve nts c e ntr a l to he r c la im o f p a stNo. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

Shipil ova ar g ues that the B I A er red b ec au s e i t “neve r stated why Ms. Shipi lova’s 9 explanations for her la ck of c orrobor ation from her ac q u ai ntance s and g randmother wer e insufficient.” We have not “a dop t [ ed ] a requirement that the Immigration J udg e [or BIA] specific ally

addre ss on the rec ord why an applicant ’s ex p lanation is insufficient, and [Shipil ova] points this court to no published Six th Circuit case la w that does.” Fisenko v . Holder , 336 F. App’ x 504, 511 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). - 13 - perse cution, we c annot say that, based on the rec ord befor e us, any rea sonable a djudicator would be require d to find her c redible. Given the I J ’s finding that Shipil ova was not cre dible, he properly deter mined that Shipil ova
was obligated to pr ove her claims with objective cor roboration. See In re Da ss , 20 I . & N . Dec . 120, 125-26 (B I A 1989). “ Where the a lien’s testimony could be view ed as inc redible, inc onsistent, or inc oh e re nt, a

fact -f ind e r m ay

re a so na bly c on c lud e , a

bs e nt c or ro bo ratio n, tha

t th e te sti mony

is insufficient to meet the standa rd of pr oof re quired.” Sako v. G onzales , 434 F.3d 857, 862 ( 6th Cir. 20 06 ) ( c itatio n o mit te d) . Ind e e d, we have he ld t hat, e ve n if

an a pp li can t’ s c re dib ili ty

is n ot i n question, the failure to provide re asonably available corr oborating evidenc e “c an lead to a finding that an applica

nt has failed to mee t her burde n of proof .” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro

ft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 9 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) (i nte rn a l quot a tio n mar ks and c itatio n o mit

te d) ; see also Shkabari v . Gonzales , 427 F.3d 324, 331 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (holding that applicant f ailed to meet r efug ee bur den whe re r ecor d included evide nce that she could have obtained docume nts confirming her ho s p i t al v isit after alleg edly being beate n by

police, or othe r medica l evidence , but failed to do so). He re , th e I J wa s c or

re c t to fi nd that the a

bs e nc e of an af

fi davit or c e rt if ic a te of me mbe rs hip from any co n gre gan t of the B aptist church in Russia or f rom the chur ch itself fur

ther unde rmined Shipil ova’s c redibility

. Her churc h membership g oes to the hea rt of her claim for a sy lum based onNo. 09-3895

Shipilova v. Holder

- 14 - a fear of relig ious perse cution. Moreove r, t he I J proper ly found it signific ant that Shipilova failed to pr ovide: (1) any corr oboration from the attorne y her pa stor in Russi a alleg edly called f or advic e; (2) a police re port or other

evidenc e of her complaints; (3) any medical c orrobor ation for he r alleg ed injuries; (4) a le tter fr om her paterna l gr andmother w ho taug ht her a bout the Ba

ptist religion; (5) a letter fr om her brothe r, or mother , with whom she had spoken two w eeks pr ior to her he aring ; (6) copies of any relig ious literature she disseminated in Russia; or (7) a friend f rom her c hurch in the United States as a w itness at her he aring

. I ns u m , S h i p i l o v a’ s t es t i m o n y wa s i n co n s i s t en tre gar d i n g s ev er al s i gn i fi ca n tm at t er s t h at go to the hear

t of her c laim, wh i ch wo u l d t end to enhance he r cla ims of persec ution. Further more, Shipil ova proffer ed ins ufficie nt corrobor ation to demonstrate pe rsec ution given that her testimony
wa s n ot c re dib le . T he re fo re , “ [b]a se d o n th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or d, a re a so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld not be compelled to f

ind [ Shipil ova] credible.” Pi lic a v. As hc ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 952 (6th Cir. 2004). Acc ording ly , Shipil ova did not sustain her burde n of provingshe is entitled to asy lum. “B eca use an a lien must meet a hig her bur den in establishi n g a ri gh t to withholdi ng of
re mov a l th an in

de mon str a tin g a sylum

e lig ibi lity , a

n a lie n w ho fa ils to q

ua lif y fo r a sylum

ne c e ssa ri ly does not qualify

for withholding of re moval.” Singh , 398 F.3d at 401. Shipi lova’s application for withhol d in g o f r e mo v a l is a c c o r d in g ly f o r e c lo s e d , a s is h e r r e qu e s t f o r p r o te c ti o n u n d e r th e CAT. See H amida v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 734, 741- 42 (6th Cir. 2007). I V. For these re asons, we de ny

the petition for re view.