FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 28, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 12342 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A A ge nc y N o. A 96- 021- 181 C H A N K E R A N M A N G R A , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O R N 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

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

_________________________ ( O c t obe r28, 2005)
B efo re D U B IN A , 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: C h a n k e r a n “N a d ir a ” M a n g r a , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f G u y a n a , p e ti t i o n s th is C ou rtt o revi ew the deci si on of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A p peal s ( “ B IA ”)We reviewonly the denial of

asylum under the I

NA. I n her order, theIJalso denied 1 relief under theUnited Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd other Cru el, Inhumane, a nd DegradingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”) and withhol ding of removal under the I

NA. Ho we ve r, be c a

us e wefi nd that Man gra ha s not es ta bli sh e d a ca se fo r as ylum , we de c lin e to add re ss her a rguments that she satisfied the higher standa rds for w ithholding of removal under the I NA or the CAT. See Al Na

jjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1292- 93 (11th Cir. 2001); see a l s o Fo rgu e v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005) (where a n applicant f

ails to establish a claim of a sylum on the merits, her other claims for withholdingof re moval under theI NA or under CAT g enerally

fail). Mangra’ s petition comes to this C ourt afte r the pa ssag e of theREALID Act, Pub.L . 109-13, 2 Div
. B , 1 1 9 St at. 2 3 1 ( 2 0 0 5 )
. Se c ti o n 1 0 1 ( a) ( 3 ) o f T itle I o f th e REA L ID A c t c o ntains ne w 2 a f f i r m i ng w i thoutopi ni on the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m ov ab i l i t y de c i s i on a nd de ni a l of

a s y l um unde rthe I m m i gr a t i o n a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” )
. F orthe 1
r e a s ons tha tf

ol l ow , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. O n a ppe a l , M a n g r a a r g u e s th e BI A c o mmi t t e d l e g a l e r r o r i n d e t e r mi n i n g s he fa i l ed t o m ee ther burden t o e st abl i sh thatshe s uffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on i n G uyana, thatshe had a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on i f s he re turned t o G uyana, and t hatshe w ou l d b e t ortured if sh e r eturned t o G uyana. In supp ortof her
a r gum e nt , M a ngr a hi ghl i ght s he rt e s t i m ony a boutthr e a t s s he a nd he rhus ba nd
re ce i ved from m em bers of the P eopl e’ s N at i on al C on gress (“P N C ”) , her p er se cu ti o n b as ed o n h er ra ce (I n d o -G u ya n es e) , an d h er s u p p o r t o f th e P eo p le’s P r o g r e s s i v e P a r ty ( “P P P ” ) . T h e I J f o u n d th a t M a n g r a ’s c r e d ib ility w a s “c a lle d in to
s e r io u s q u e s tio n in th e s e p r o c e e d in g s ” b a s e d o n h e ra d m itte d ly f a ls e te s tim o n y to
an i m m i grat i on offi ce r on tw o pri or occa si on s and hel d thatev en if credi bl e, M angra di d n otdem on stra t e e l i gi bi l i ty f or IN A or C A T re l i ef

. 2standards g overning asylum and withholding-of -re moval cre dibility

deter minations. S ee id. at §§ 101(a) (3) &(c)
. These standards are only applicable , howeve r, t o applications “ma de on or a fter” May 11, 2005 (the date of e nactment) . See id. at § 101(h) (2). Ma ngra’ s application wa s filed prior to Ma y 11 , 20 05 and , a c c ordin g ly , the ne w sta nd ard s fo r c re dib ili ty de term inatio ns do no t a pp ly to this case. Cf. Olujoke v. G onzalez, 411 F.3d 16, 22 n. 4 (1st Cir. 2005) (ac kn owledg ing that the REALID Act c ontained new standards f

or re viewingcre dibility

determ i nations, but determining that these standa

rds were not applica

ble to an applica

tion for asylum that was filed bef ore the enac tment of the REAL

ID Act) ; see also Chen v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 707, 709 ( 7th Cir. 2005) (same)
. 3 B ec au se th e B IA af

firm ed th e I J’s o r d e r w it h o u t o p in io n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s de c i s i on a s i f

i tw e r e the B I A ’ s de c i s i o n . A l N a j j a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F
. 3d 1262, 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. W e r e v i e w th e I J ’ s l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s d e n o v o . DMu h u m e d v . U. S
. Att ’ y Ge n . , 3 8 8 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. Ho we v e r , we e xa m i ne f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs , i n c l udi ng de t e r m i na t i ons of c r e di bi l i ty , unde rthe
s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t . F or gue v. U . S
. A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F
. 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1286 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d er th e s u b stan tia l e v id en ce test, w e w il l “ af firm th e I J’s de c i s i on i f

i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s ona bl e, su b s t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the
re cord con sid er ed as a w ho l e. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i t t ed). “ T o revers e the IJ ’ s f ac t f in d in g s , w e m u s t f

in d th a t th e r e c o r d n o t o n ly s u p p o r ts r e v e r s a l, b u t c o m p e l s i t.” M e ndoz a v. U . S
. A t t ’ y G e n. , 327 F
. 3d 1283, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( w i thhol di ng of
re m ov al cl aim ). T hatevi dence i n t he re cord m ay al so supp orta c on tra ry c o n cl us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f y a r e ve r s a l
. A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F
. 3d 1022, 1027 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , c e r t . d en i ed , - - - U . S
. - - - - , 125 S
. C t . 2245, 161 L
. E d. 2d 10 63 (200 5).4

T o r e ve r s e the IJ’ s de c i s i on, the r e c or d m us tc om pe l a c ontr a r y c onc l us i on. Y a ng
v. U . S
. A t t ’ y G e n. , 418 F
. 3d 1198, 1202 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (q u ot a t i on om i t t e d) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). A n a l i e n w ho a r r i ve s i n or i s p resenti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y a ppl y f or a s y l um . S e e I N A § 208( a ) ( 1) , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1158( a ) ( 1)
. T o qua l i fy fora s y l um , the
a lie n m u s t b e 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 illin g to r e tu r n t o h e r h o m e c o u n tr y o rto a v a il hers el f of thatcoun try ’ s prot ect i on “ beca use of per se cut i on or a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar of pers ec u ti o n on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . . . .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A )
. T h e as yl um appl i ca ntca rr i es the bu rden of prov i ng st atut ory “ re fugee”
s t a tus . S e e A l N a

j j a r , 257 F
. 3d a t1284; 8 C
. F . R . § 2 08. 13( a )
. T he a ppl i c a nt sat i sfi es th i s b u rd en b y s h o w i n 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 l i st ed fa ct or, or (2) a “w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ” th a t h is o rh e rs ta tu t o r i ly lis te d f a c to rw ill c a u s e f

u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (a), ( b) ; A l N a

jj a r , 257 F
. 3d a t1287. A “ w e l l
- f ounde d f e a r ” of pe r s e c ut i on
m ay be establ i shed base d o n (1) pastpers ec ut i on thatcr ea t es a pre sum pt i on of a “w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r ” a n d b y o v e r c o m in g a n y r e b u tta l b y th e I N S ; ( 2 ) a r e a s o n a b le po s s i b i l i ty o f p e r s o n a l p e r s e c u t i o n th a t c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d b y r e l o c a t i n g w i t hi n t he
s ubj e c tc ou n t ry; o r( 3) a pa t t e r n orpr a c t i c e i n the s ubj e c tc ountr y of pe r s e c ut i ng5

m e m b e r s o f

a s t a t u to r ily d e f

in e d g r o u p o f

w h ic h th e a lie n is a p a r t. S e e 8 C .F .R § 2 08
. 13 (b)( 1), (2). T he pe t i t i one r ’ s w e l l
- f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i o n m us tbe on a c c ountof , or beca use of, on e of the st atut ori l y l i st ed fa ct ors, su ch as h er po l i t i ca l op i ni on . S ee I N S v. E l i a s - Z a c a r i a s , 502 U
. S
. 478, 483, 112 S
. C t . 812, 816, 117 L
. E d. 2d 38 ( 1992)
. T he pe t i t i one rm us te s t a bl i s h thi s c a us a l c onne c t i on by “ pr e s e nt i ng spec i fi c, det ai l ed fa ct s s ho w i ng a goo d rea son t o fea r thathe or she w i l l be si ng l ed
o u t f o r p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f s u c h a n o p in io n .” S e p u lv e d a v . U .S
. A t t ’ y G e n ., 40 1 F
. 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed ). M o re ov er , w e hel d t hat “p e r s e c u tio n is a n e x tr e m e c o n c e p t , r e q u ir in g m o r e th a n a f e w is o la te d in c id e n ts
o f v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n , a n d th a t m e r e h a r a s s m e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to p e r s e c u tio n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d )
. A n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on al o n e m ay be f a t a l t o a n a s y l um appl i ca t i on . F orgu e, 40 1 F
. 3d at12 87
. B ef ore a dd re ss i ng w hether s ub st ant i al
e vi de n ce su p por t s a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on, w e f i r s tm us tde t e r m i ne
w hether the IJ even m ade a n adv er se cr edi bi l i ty det er m i nat i on . Y ang, 41 8 F
. 3d at 12 0 1
. I f th e I J ma k e s a n a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty f i n d i n g , th e n th e I J m us t pr ovi de spec i fi c, cogentre as on s f or do i ng so or the fi nd i ng m ustbe base d o n sub st ant i al
e v id e n c e . F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ( c ita tio n o m itt e d )
. A n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i n d i n g m u st go t o the he a r tof the a ppl i c a nt ’ s c l a i m a nd notbe ba s e d on m i norWe also ob se rv e that e vid e nc e in t here c ord s up po rt e d th e po ssibil ity of re a so na ble 3 r e lo c ati o nw it

h in Guyan a , d is p e ll in gM an gr a ’ s c laim o f a w e ll
- founded

f e ar o f p e r s e c uti o n . We have a pproved of

a “c ountry-wide require ment” in whi ch a re fug ee must first pursuean “inter nal rese ttlement alternative” in his own country , o r es t abli sh that this is not possible, beforeseeking asylum here. Mazarieg os v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F .3d 1320, 1326-27 (11th Cir. 2001). 6 in c o n s is te n c ie s o ro m is s io n s . S e e C h e b c h o u b v . I .N .S ., 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2001)
. A f

t e ran ad ve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i s m a de , the a ppl i c a ntbe a r s the bur de n o f s how i ng thi s de c i s i on w a s nots uppor t e d by s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons or
w a s n o tb a s e d o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . F or gue , 401 F. 3 d a t1 2 8 7 . W e w i l l a f f i r m a pr op erl y s uppor t e d I J ’ s de c i s i on be c a us e w e “ m a y nots ubs t i tut e [ our ] j udgm e ntf or tha tof the I J w i th r e s pe c tt o c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ngs . ” I d. a t1286. H e r e , the I J ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppo rt ed by r e a s ona bl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd pr oba t i ve ev i d en ce an d w e are n o tco m p el l ed t o rev erse. S p eci fi cal l y, as fo u n d b y th e IJ, Ma n g r a l i e d o n two p r e v i o u s o c c a s i o n s a b o u th e rh u s b a n d b e i n g k i l l e d b y P NC
m e m b e r s , s h e g a v e in c o n s is te n t t e s tim o n y , a n d e m b e llis h e d h e rc la im s o f th r e a ts to he ra nd he rf

a m i l y . T he s e di s c r e pa nc i e s go t o the he a r tof M a n g ra’ s cl ai m of p er se cu ti o n . O n th is r e c o r d , M an g ra h as n o t m et h er b u rd en to sh o w th e I J’s

3 deci si on , i ncl ud i ng i t s c re di bi l i ty det er m i n atio n , w as no tsupp ort ed by subst ant i al
e vi de nc e . F or gue , 401 F . 3d a t 1287. A c c or di ngl y , w e de ny he r pe t i t i o n for
r e v i e w. PETI TI O N D EN I ED .