FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 21 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 87 -9 31 -3 42 ZHI GUI LI, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 4, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Zhi Gui Li is a Ch in es e n at io na l wh o app li edforasylum an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n andNati on al it y Act (I NA) an d Un it edNati on s Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (C AT) bec au se of h is op po si ti on to Ch in a’s fam il ypl an ni ng po li ci es . An imm ig rat io n ju dg e (IJ ) de ni edLi’s ap pl ic at io n a fte r

de te rm in in g t ha t Li was n ota cred ib le witne ss . Li ap pe al edto th e Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (B IA) an d a rg ue d t ha t the IJ’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng was in co rrec t. Li al so ask edth atth e BIA re m an d t he cas e to th e IJso th atsh e co ul d c on si de r ne w evi de nc e. The B IA ag reedwith t he IJ’s adve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng an d a ffi rm edth e IJ . The BI A als o re fu se d t o re m an d t he cas e b ecau se it de te rm in edth atLi’s “ ne w” ev id en ce h adbe enav ai labl e atth e ti m e o f hi s h eari ng . Li n ow p et it io ns forrev ie w. Becau se we co nc lu de th atth e BIA’s ad ve rs ecred ib il it y

fin di ng was s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d t ha t i t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to rem an d Li ’s cas e, we de ny his pe ti ti on . 1 I. Inhi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n, Li co nt en de d t ha t h e was pe rs ecu te d fo r hi s op po si ti on to Ch in a’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li ci es . Li cla im edth athi s wi fe, wit h who m he ha s a s on , was fo rcedto un de rg o a n abo rti on aft er s he go t p reg na ntfora se co ndti m e. Afte r th e ab orti on , Li’s wife be cam e p reg na ntag ai n a ndwentin to hi di ng . Sho rtl y

th erea fte r, Li was ap pr oa ch edby fam il y pl an ni ng off

ic ia ls who were l oo ki ng forhi s wi fe. Whe n h e refu se d t o d iv ul ge he r whe reab ou ts , th e Be causethe B IA did not addre ss the merits of L i’s asylum and withholding-of -re moval 1 claims, we c annot addr ess those arguments in L i’s petition. Chen v. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 n.4 (11th Cir. 2006). 2of

fic ia ls de ta in edhi m

forat l eas t 2 0 d ay s. Du rin g h is de te nt io n, Li cla im s the of fic ia ls be athi m . At so m e p oi ntinhi s d et en ti on , Li was vi si te d b y hi s b ro th er, who was c on cern edth atLi’s wou nd s m ig htge t i nf ect edif re m ai ne d i n d et en ti on . So hi s b ro th er re tu rn edth e n ig htaft er the ir m eet in g, an d c utth e lo ckoff Li’s cel l. Li the n u se d alad de r to sca le a wall inth e co m pl ex an d e sc ap e. The IJ d et erm in edth atLi was no t a c red ib le witne ss , andth us de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n. In m ak in g t he adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, the IJ c it edsev eral in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenLi’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, h is st at em en ts be fo re the he ari ng of fic er, an d h is tes ti m on y

be fo re the IJ. Las t, the IJ a ls o fo un d c ert ai n p art s o f Li’s cl ai m im pl au si bl e, es pe ci al ly his acco un t o f hi s es cap e. Init s d eci si on , th e BIA n ot edth atth e IJ ’s adv ers e-cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n was ba se d o n t he im

pl au si bi li ti es inLi’s ap pl ic at io n, as well as t he in co ns is te nc ie s be twee n h is ap pl ic at io n a ndlat er s ta te m en ts . II. Whe n t he BIA is su es it s o wn o pi ni on , as i s the cas e h ere, we re vi ew on ly th atop in io n. Moh ammed v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 54 7 F .3d13 40 , 13 44 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w any leg al co nc lu si on s m ad e b y th e BIA de no vo , bu t we m ay no t re ject i ts factua l fi nd in gs un le ss th ey are s o u ns up po rte d b y

ev id en ce tha t the

3reco rdco m

pe ls it . Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 –5 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). III. The INA all ows th e Att orne y Gene ral to gra ntasylu m

to an y ali enwho is un ab le or u nwi ll in g t o re tu rnto hi s h om e co un try “be cau se of p ers ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti onon acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 01 (a)( 42 ), 11 58 (b )(1 )(A). Si m il arl y , to qu al ify for wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , anali enm

us t es tabl is h t ha t upo n re tu rnto hi s h om e co un try it i s m or e li ke ly tha n no t tha t h is li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edbe cau se of h is race , rel ig io n, na ti on al it y , m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 32 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). If anali en can no t m eetth e st an da rdforasylu m , he i s u su al ly unabl e to m eetth e “ m or e st rin ge nt ” withh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al st an da rd . Id. at12 32 –3 3. An al ie n’s cr ed ib le tes ti m on y m ay by its el f es tabl is h t ha t h e is en ti tl edto rel ie f. Ni ftal ie v v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 50 4 F .3d12 11 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). But an al ie n wh os e te st im on y

is in cred ib le m ay

be de ni edrel ie f if

hi s ap pl ic at io n i s un supp orte d b y

co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e. Ca rr iz o v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 65 2 F .3d 13 26 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Und er the REAL ID Act, anIJ m ay m ak e an 4adve rs e-cr ed ib il ity fin di ng ba se d o n, am on g o th er thi ng s, the im pl au si bi li ty of th e ap pl ic an t’s ac co un t o r an y in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenth e ap pl ic an t’s o ral st at em en ts an d wri tt enap pl ic at io n. Id. at13 31 –3 2. We hav e n ot edth atcred ib le tes ti m on y is m ark edby “ co ns is te nc y

on di rectex am in at io n, co ns is te nc y with t he writ te n ap pl ic at io n, an d t he ab se nc e o f em be ll is hm en ts .” Sh ka mbi v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 58 4 F.3 d 1 04 1, 1 04 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . To o ve rtu rnanadve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng , a pe ti ti on er m

us t s ho w th atth e BIA’s fi nd in g “ was no t s up po rte d b y ‘ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as ed on subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Und er thi s t es t, we “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof th atde ci si on .” Id . at 1 28 6. An d, l ik e an y ot he r fac tu al fin di ng , a cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n “ m ay

no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss th e rec or d c om pe ls it .” Id . at 1 28 7. Here we co nc lu de th atth e BIA’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng was s up po rte d by sub st an ti al ev id en ce. The BIA o ffer edsp eci fic an d c og en t re as on s fo r it s fin di ng , po in ti ng to , am on g o th er thi ng s, the in co ns is te nc y be twee n Li ’s cla im ed le ng th of d et en ti on on hi s ap pl ic at io n a ndinhi s o ral st at em en ts be fo re the he ari ng of fic er an d t he IJ. Th e BIA al so cit edto th e IJ ’s fin di ng th atLi’s acc ou ntof h is es cap e was im

pl au si bl e. Inhi s p et it io n, Li arg ue s tha t the IJ’s i m pl au si bi li ty 5fin di ng on th is po in t was sp ecu la ti ve . ButLi p oi nt s t o n ot hi ng inth e rec or d t ha t

co m pe ls a fi nd in g o th erwi se . Tho ug h t he BIA ci te d s ev eral reas on s fo r it s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng , we ne edno t d is cu ss th em , as i ts de te rm in at io n t ha t Li ’s acco un t o f hi s es cap e fro m th e de te nt io n fa ci li ty w as im

pl au si bl e is subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt i ts adve rs ecred ib il it y

fin di ng an d Li ha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e rec or d c om pe ls th atwe rev ers e th e b oa rd ’s dec is io n. Be cau se we co nc lu de th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce supp orte d t he BIA’s adve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng an d t hu s the de ci si on to de ny Li as y lu m , we als o c on cl ud e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e b oa rd ’s dec is io n t ha t he was u nabl e to m eetth e m or e st rin ge ntst an dardforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2. IV. W e n ow ad dr es s Li ’s cla im th atth e BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re m an d. We con st ru e m ot io ns to rem an d b as edon ne w evi de nc e as m ot io ns to reo pe n, wh ic h we r ev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Aliv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 64 3 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Andwe wil l o nl y fin d t ha t the BIA h as ab us edit s d is cret io n i f it s d eci si on was a rb it rary or cap ric io us . Aliv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 3 F .3d80 4, 8 08 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). Whe n a n app li can t s eek s t o re op enhi s rem ov al pro ceed in gs ba se d o n n ew ev id en ce, h e m us t s ho w th atth e ev id en ce i s 6bo th m at eri al an d was eithe r un av ai labl e o r co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredor

pr es en te d a t the pri orhe ari ng . 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(1 ). To s up po rt h is m ot io n t o re op en , Li subm it te d aps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on th atwas c on du ct edaft er h is he ari ng an d e st ab li sh edth athe su ffer edfro m po st traum at ic st res s d is or de r (PTSD), as well as s ev eral art ic le s o n C hi ne se he rb al m ed ic in e an d t he Ch in es e res id en ti al pe rm it ti ng syste m . The BI A con cl ud edth at Li h adfai le d t o e st ab li shth athe was u nabl e to ob ta ina ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on be fo re h is he ari ng , andth atno ne of t he art ic le s h e subm it te d c on ta in edda te s o f publ ic at io n i nd ic at in g t ha t the y ha d b een un av ai labl e atth e ti m e o f th e h eari ng , al th ou gh on e in di cat editha d b een las t upd at edaft er the he ari ng . Inhi s p et it io n, Li arg ue s tha t h e was su ffer in g fr om a m en ta l b reak do wn du rin g t he he ari ng , andth us itwas u nc le ar tha t h e n eed edto pre se nta ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on un ti l af te rward . Butas t he rep ort i ts el f in di cat ed , Li’s PTSD was attrib ut ab le to ev en ts th atoc cu rredbe fo re the he ari ng , andth us he co ul d h av e b eendi ag no se d b efo reh an d. Lik ewis e, in hi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w, Li adm it s tha t i t was on ly after the he ari ng th athe real iz edth e IJm ig htno t h av e b e fam il ia r wit h C hi ne se he rb al m ed ic in e—Li ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t h is wife ’s herba l m ed ic in e u se was ano th er b as is forth e IJ ’s adv ers e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng —an d t hu s wou ldha ve be ne fit te d fr om anart ic le on th e subjec t. Tha t t oo fai ls to est ab li sh

7th atth e art ic le was u na va il ab le or c ou ldno t h av e b een pre se nt edat Li ’s hea rin g.

W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Li ’s m ot io n t o re op en . PETI TI ON DENI ED.

8