[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 28 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y no . A09 5- 23 0- 27 7 CHAI CHOE TJOE, Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ne r 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st7, 2 01 2) Befo re CARNES, J ORDAN, andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15284 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 4Ch ai Tjoe, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof I nd on es ia , ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s o n a

no ni m m ig ran t F- 1 v is a o n J an uary 8, 2 00 0. In 20 02 , sh e fi le d a n app li cat io n se ek in g a sylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (C AT) bas edon he r rac e (Ch in es e) an d re li gi on (Ch ris ti an ). She ass ert edth atCh in es e Ch ris ti an s i n In do ne si a are di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t. In 20 09 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rity ch arg edhe r as rem ov ab le fo r fai li ng to co m

pl y wit h t he co nd it io ns of the no ni m m ig ran t s ta tu s u nd er wh ic h sh e was adm it te d. Tjoe c on ced edrem ov ab il it y , bu t s he ren ewedhe r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. An i m m ig rat io n ju dg e de ni edhe r rel ie f, fin di ng th atsh e was no t cr ed ib le . She ap pe al edth e IJ ’s dec is io n to th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s, wh ic h a ffi rm ed . She th enti m el y fil edth is pe ti ti on forrev ie w of t he BIA’s de ci si onde nyin g h er re qu es t fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al an d C AT reli ef. 1 Tjoe co nt en ds th atth e BIA erredin fin di ng he r no t cr ed ib le . Becau se th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y

ad op t t he IJ’s d eci si on , we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . See Rui z v . Gon zal es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). W e rev ie w for subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t he BIA’s fact fin di ng s, i nc lu di ng anadve rs e cre di bi li ty

In her brief, Tjoe states that she does not pe tition for reviewof the B IA’s denia l of her 1 reque st for asylum. 2

Case: 11-15284 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 4de te rm in at io n, an d re vi ew de no vo it s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th os e fac tfi nd in gs .

D-Mu hu m edv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 3 88 F.3d81 4, 8 17 –1 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) . Whe n rev ie win g fo r subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, “ we rev ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 40 F.3d12 47 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ W e m

us t af firm th e [BI A’ s] dec is io n i f itis supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Id . at 12 54 –5 5. To o bt ai n wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , Tjoe m us t es tabl is h t ha t h er “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edin [In do ne si a] becaus e o f [h er] 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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A); see Tan v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 46 F.3d13 69 , 13 75 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ The ali enbe ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n no t s he wil l b e p ers ecu te d o r to rtu redup on be in g re tu rn edto he r co un try.” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ). To o bt ai n C AT reli ef, s he m us t “ es tabl is h t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth at. . . sh e wou ldbe to rtu redif re m ov edto [In do ne si a].” 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ). Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t Tjoe di d n otcred ib ly es tabl is h arig htto wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al or C AT reli ef. Tjoe t es ti fie d b efo re the 3 Case: 11-15284 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 4IJ th atsh e h adco nv ert edto Ch ris ti an it y fro m Bu dd hi sm

when sh e was “ li tt le .” Her t es ti m on y , ho wev er, was co nt rad ic te d b y th e id en ti fic at io n c ardsh e subm it te d in supp ort o f he r ap pl ic at io n. Th atcard , whi ch was i ss ue d wh ensh e was twen tyon e y ears ol d a ndaft er h er arriv al in th e Uni te d S ta te s, l is te d h er re li gi on as

“ Bu dd ha ,” an d Tjoe off

eredno ev id en ce t o c orro bo rat e h er t es ti m on y th atsh e h ad co nv ert edto Ch ris ti an ity . See Li Sh anCh env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 6 72 F.3d96 1, 9 64 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (“ An ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, o n i ts own , m ay be su ffi ci en t t o supp ort t he de ni al of a n a sylum ap pl ic at io n, b uton ly whe n t he ap pl ic an t p ro du ces no ev id en ce ex cep t fo r [h er] tes ti m on y .”). Als o, Tjoe tes ti fie d t ha t h er fa th er was at ta ck edby nat iv e, no n- Ch in es e In do ne si an s an d t ha t h e d ie d t he ne xtda y . She in tro du cedhe r fat he r’s ob ituary in to ev id en ce, b utitst at edth athe di ed“ du e to il ln es s” an d d idno t m en ti onth e al le ge d a tt ack . In l ig htof t ho se in co ns is te nc ie s, th e BIA d idno t err in fin di ng Tjoe n otcred ib le . PETI TI ON DENI ED.

4 Case: 11-15284 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 4 of 4