FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 03 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 90 -3 47 -4 17 YING CHEN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Yin g C he n, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C hi na , pet it io ns forrev ie w of thede ci si on of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s tha t af firm edanord er o f he r rem ov al . Che n arg ue s tha t the Bo arderro ne ou sl y fou ndth athe r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m was u nt im el y

an d t ha t h er t es ti m on y

at h er re m ov al he ari ng was i nc red ib le . Ch enals o c on te nd s tha t s he est ab li sh edpa stpe rs ecu ti on an d awell -fo un de d fe ar of futur e p ers ecu ti on . W e d is m is s i n p artan d d en y inpart C he n’s p et it io n. W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e fi nd in g tha t Ch en ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m was u nt im el y . An ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m m us t b e “ fil edwithi n 1 y ear a fte r th e d at e o f th e al ie n’s arriv al inth e Uni te d S ta te s.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( a)(2 )(B) . An un ti m el y ap pl ic at io n “ m ay

be co ns id ered. . . if t he ali ende m on st rat es to th e sa ti sf act io n o f th e Att orne y

Gene ral eit he r th e ex is te nc e o f ch an ge d c irc um st an ces whi chm at eri al ly affectth e ap pl ic an t’s el ig ib il ity forasylu m

or e xtrao rd in ary ci rcu m st an ces rel at in g t o t he de la y infil in g a n app li cat io n.” Id. § 11 58 (a)( 2) (D). Sect io n 1 15 8( a)(3 ) “ di ve st s o urCo urt o f juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a de ci si on reg ard in g wh ethe r anali enco m pl ie d wi thth e o ne -y ear t im e li m itor e st ab li sh ed ex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces th atwou ldex cu se hi s u nt im el y fil in g.” Men do za v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 3 27 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 thCir . 20 03 ). W e d is m is s C he n’s pe ti ti on to rev ie w th e fi nd in g t ha t h er ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m was unt im el y . Whe n t he Bo arden te rs a writ te n o pi ni on an d e xp res sl y ad op ts th e rea so ni ng of th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e, we rev ie w th e d eci si on s o f bo th th e Bo ardan d t he 2imm ig rat io n ju dg e. Al Najjar v. As hc ro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

W e rev ie w th e fi nd in gs of t he Bo ardan d t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e und er the subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t. Ch env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 28 , 12 30 –3 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Und er tha t t es t, we wi ll no t d is tu rb a fi nd in g 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 who le .” Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. Anadve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n “ ‘can be rev ers edon ly if th e ev id en ce “ co m pe ls ” a rea so nabl e fac t fi nd er t o fi nd ot he rwis e.’” Chen , 46 3 F .3dat 1 23 1 (quo ti ng Sep ul ve dav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3 d 1 22 6, 1 23 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). An ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n m ay be ba se d o n a ny inc on si st en cy , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e in co ns is te nc y go es to th e he artof t he cla im . Tang v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 78 F.3d12 70 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Ev enwhen anap pl ic an t i s n otcred ib le , th e Bo ard m us t ex am in e al l ev id en ce i n t he reco rdbe fo re d en y in g a n app li cat io n. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). “ The weak er an ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y

. . . th e g reat er the ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Yan g v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 18 F.3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In a dd it io n, “ th e b ur de n is onth e ap pl ic an t al ie n t o s ho w th atth e cre di bi li ty deci si on was n otsupp orte d b y ‘spe ci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as edon subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Fo rg ue , 40 1 F.3 d a t 1 28 7. 3Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y th e Bo ardan d t he imm ig rat io n jud ge th atCh en ’s tes ti m on y was i nc red ib le . Che n i ni ti al ly alle ge d fe ar o f fo rced st eri li zat io n i f returne d t o C hi na , bu t l at er al le ge d p as t p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n rel ig io n. Ch enals o p ro vi de d i nc on si st en t ev id en ce ab ou t h er re li gi on an d co nt rad ic to ry

ex pl an at io ns ab ou t the in co ns is te nc y . Che n fa il edto m en ti on in ei th er h er fi rs t ap pl ic at io n o r as y lu m in te rv ie w herall eg edearl ie r arre st , det en ti on , an d b eat in g i n C hi na , andCh enim pl au si bl y all eg edth atsh e res id edinOrland o whi le he r th ree c hi ldrenres id edinNew York . The Bo ardan d t he imm ig rat io n jud ge pro vi de d s pe ci fic an d c og en t re as on s fo r fi nd in g C he n’s t es ti m on y in cred ib le . Ch en ’s rem ai ni ng ev id en ce d oe s n otco m pe l a f in di ng of p as t p ers ecu ti on or a wel l-f ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on . The Bo ardan d t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e rev ie wedCh en ’s rem ai ni ng ev id en ce an d re as on ab ly exp la in edth atCh enfai le d t o of fer aut he nt ic do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce o r cre di bl e te st im on y th atsh e wil l l ik el y

be si ng le d o utforpe rs ecu ti on if re tu rn edto Ch in a. W e d en y Ch en ’s pet it io n t o rev ie w th e d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al . PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED i n pa rt, DENI ED in pa rt.

4