FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 20, 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- 14707 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 97- 390- 848 X I C H E N , P e titio n e r , 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.

________________________ N o. 06- 14708 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 97- 390- 850 X I T U O C H E N , P et i t i on er , ve r s us 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.Be cause we conclude Petit ioners have not met their burden to establish their elig ibility for 1 asylum, w e al s o concludethat they failed to meet the higher standard for withholdingof removal under theI

NA or CAT relief. A l Najjar v. A shcrof t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1292-93 ( 11th Cir.2001). 2 ________________________ P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

a D 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 20, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P r o s e P e titio n e r s , X i C h e n a n d X itu o C h e n , w h o a r e b r o th e r s a n d b o th
na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of C hi na , pe t i t i on thi s C our tt o r e vi e w the d eci si o n o f the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm i ng w i thout opi ni on a n Im m i gr a t i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) r em ov al order and denia l of as yl um and w ithh ol di ng of re m ov al
un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on on T o rtu re a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e nt orP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) . P e t i t i one r s a r gue th at the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al ev id en ce , and thatthey e st abl i shed a f ea r of f uture pe r s e c ut i on, s uf

f i c i e ntt o w a rr a nta s y l um , i f the y r e turn t o C hi na . A f t e rc a r e f ul
r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. 13

Wh e n th e B I A a d o p t s th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , we r e v i e w th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n . Al N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 2 5 7 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ T o the e xt e nttha tthe [ I J ’ s ] d e c i s i o n wa s b a s e d o n a l e g a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n , [ o u r ] r e v i e w i s d e n o v o . ” DM u h u m ed v . U .S . A tt ’y G en ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “T h e I J’s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta r e r e v i e we d u n d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , ” m e a n i n g th a twe m us ta f f i rm the I J ’ s de c i s i on “ i f i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s o n ab l e, su b s t a nt i a l , a nd p ro b ativ e e v id en ce o n th e r ec o rd co n si d er ed as a w h o le.” A n ti p o v a v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 1259, 1261 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . P uta nothe rw a y , w e w i l l rev erse the IJ o n ly u p o n f

in d in g th at th e r ec o rd co m p els th at co n clu sio n . F ah im v . U .S . A tt ’y G en. , 27 8 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 18 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A n a l i e n w ho a rr i ve s i n ori s p resen t i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y appl y f or as yl um . S ee IN A § 2 08 (a )( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8( a) (1 ). T h e A tt orney G ener al has d is c r e tio n to g r a n t a s y lu m if th e a lie n m e e ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f

a“r e f u g e e .” S e e I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is a n y p e r s o n w h o is
u n w il li n g to re tu rn to h is h o m e co u n try o r t o av ail h im se lf o f th a t c o u n try’s pr ot ect i on “ be c a us e of pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l
- f ounde d f

e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i t y, m em b e r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or p o litic a l o p in io n . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) .4

T he as yl um appl i ca ntca rr i es the bu rden of prov i ng statu tory“ re fugee”
s t a tus . S e e A l N aj j ar, 2 5 7 F . 3d a t1284; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . T he appl i c a nt sat i sfi es th i s b u rd en b y sh o w in g , w i th sp eci fi c an d cred i b l e ev i d en ce: (1 ) p ast pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s t atut ori l y li st ed fa ct or, or (2) a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” tha thi s s t a tut or i l y l i s t e d f a c t orw i l l c a us e f

utur e pe r s e c u t i o n. A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d at1 2 8 7 ; 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 3 (a), (b ). “ T o est ab l i sh asyl u m b ased o n p ast pe r s e c ut i on , the appl i c a ntm us tpr ove ( 1) tha ts he w a s pe r s e cu t ed , an d (2 ) tha tthe pe r s e c ut i on w a s on a c c ountof a pr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” S i l vav. U . S . A t t ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229, 1236 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d ). “ T o e s t abl i s h e l i gi bi l i ty f or asyl u m b ased o n a w el l -fo u n d ed fear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n , th e ap p l i can tm u st pr ove ( 1) a ‘ s ubj e c t i ve l y ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l y r e a so n ab l e’ f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, th a t is ( 2 ) o n a c c o u n t o f a p r o te c te d g r o u n d .” I d . ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I f a n a l i e n pr ovi de s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , i tm ay b e s uf f i c i e nt , w i thout
corr ob oratio n , to est abl i sh hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or re l i ef fr om re m ov al . C hen, 46 3 F . 3d at 1 2 3 1 . H o w ev er, an IJ’ s d en i al o f asyl u m r e lie f c a n b e b ased so l el y o n an ad v erse c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on i f the a l i e n doe s notpr oduc e c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e . I d. If the al i en do es prov id e co rr o b o ra t i ng evi dence, the IJm ayno tre l y s ol el y on an advers e c re di bi l i ty d eter m i nat i on and m ustconsi der the corroborat i ng evi dence. F orgu e v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 87 (11th C ir. 2 0 05 ). O nce the IJ5

e xpl i c i t l y f

i nds tha tthe a l i e n l a c ks c r e di bi l i ty , the bur de n s h i ft s t o the a l i e n t o s how tha tthe I J ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y de t e rm i na t i on “ w a s nots uppor t e d by s pe c i f i c , c oge nt
r e a s ons orw a s notba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . ” C h en v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n, 463 F . 3d 1228, 1231 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I ndi c a t i ons of r e l i abl e t e st i m o n y i nc l ude
c o n si st enc y on di r e c te xa m i na t i on, c ons i s t e nc y w i th the w r i tt e n a s y l um appl i c a t i on, a nd the abs e nc e of e m be l l i s hm e nt s . S e e I n r e B - , 21 I & N D e c . 6 6 , 70 ( B I A 1 9 9 5 ) . H e r e , th e I J m a d e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g , f o r w h ic h s h e g a v e s p e c if ic
r e a s o n s , in c lu d in g th a t ( 1 ) X i C h e n ’s te s tim o n y b e f o r e t h e I J c o n f

lic te d w ith h is t e s t i m ony a thi s c r e di bl e - f e a ri n t erv i e w a nd w i th s t a t e m e nt s he m a de i n hi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on r e ga r di ng how the C hi ne s e o f f i c i a l s di s c ove r e d hi s w i f e ’ s s e c ond pr e gna nc y , w he n he l e a rne d tha thi s w i f e ha d b een st eri l i z e d, a nd the na m e of the f r i e nd a tw hos e hous e t h e C h en s h i d f r om the C hi ne s e a uthor i t i e s ; a nd ( 2) X i tuo C h e n ’s te s tim o n y i n d i c a te d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w s o m e o f th e f a c ts th a t h e a n d h is b ro th er w ere relyi n g o n i n su p p o r t o f th ei r cl ai m fo r asyl u m . T h ese i nc o n s i s t e n c i e s , a s w e l l a s th e Ch e n s ’ f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e d e t a i l e d t e s t i mo n y i n a i d of th ei r asyl u m cl ai m s, su p p o rtth e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty fi n d i n g s. I n a ddi t i on t o m a ki ng a dverse c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ngs , the I J c ons i de r e d the C he ns ’ c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e , w hi c h i nc l ude d “ not a r i a l bi rt h c e r t i f i c a t i ons ” a nd6

an X - r a y a ndho s pi t a l r e c or ds a s s oc i a t e d w i th X i Che n’ s w i f e ’ s a l l e ge d i nv ol un t ar y st er i l i za t i on . T he IJst at ed thatshe q uest i on ed the i dent i ty of e ac h p et i t i on er because a l tho ug h the pet i t i on er s l ef tC hi na w i th the i r ow n p as sport s, they had fa i l ed t o p re se ntl egi t i m ate p as sp ort s i n sup po rtof thei r pet i t i on s. M oreover, the IJ
n o t e d , a m o n g o th e rin d ic a tio n s o f ala c k o f

a u th e n tic ity , th a t th e P e titio n e r s ’ b ir th
c e r t i fi cat i o n s w ere i ssu ed si m u l t an eo u sl y an d aft er th e P et i t i o n ers l eft C h i n a . A s for X i C hen’ s w i fe ’ s X -r ayand h ospi t al re po rt , the IJob se rved that“ the re d sea l [ o n th e X - r a y ] d o e s n o t c o n s is te n tly f o llo w th r o u g h f

r o m th e p ap e r d o c u m e n t o n to the ph ot og raph , ” a nd thatthe re po rtdi d n otes t abl i sh thatthe exi st ence of a f orce d
s te r iliz a tio n . O n th is r e c o r d , th e c o rr o b o r a t i n g e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c o m p e l u s to concl ud e thatthe IJerre d b y f i nd i ng that X i a n d X itu o fai l ed t o carrythei r burden of show i ng thatthey had ei ther s uffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on or had a w el l- foun ded f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n y th e p e titio n s f o rr e v ie w . P E T I T I ON S DE NI E D.