P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60534 Su m m ar y Cal endar AM I REH SAN K H AEF P et i t i on er v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 99 213 028 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A m i rehsan Kh aef, a na t ive an d ci t i zen of Ir a n , p e t i t i on s t h i s c ou rtf or a r e v ie w o f ad e c is io n o f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (B IA) d is m is s in gh is ap pea lof

an order of

an I m m i grati on Ju dg e (IJ) t h at den i ed h i s app l i cat i on f or w ith h o ld in gof re m o v a l a n d re li e f u n d e r th e C o n v e n tion A g a in st T o rtu re (C A T ). T h e IJ d e n ie dK h a e f’s a p p lic a tio n a fte rfin d in gth a t K h a e f w a s n o t a cr e d ib le w i t n ess. A l t erna t ivel y, t h e I J rul ed that even i f Kh a e f’ s te stim on y h adbeen

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 1, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60534

2 c r e dibl e , Khae f

ha d no tde m o ns t r at e d e l i gibil i t y f o r r e l i e f. The BI A c o nc l ude d, w i t h ou treachi n g t h e m erit s of t h e I J’ s al t erna t e hol di n g, t h at K h aef h adfai l ed t o m eet h i s bu rden of provi n g el i gibi l i t y f or w i t h h ol di n g of rem ov a l or r el i ef u n der t h e C A T becau se K h aef h ad fai l ed t o provi de c redibl e evi den ce i n sup port of hi s c l ai m s. K hae f no w a r gue s that the I J e r r e d i n f i ndi ng t hathe ha d p as s e d a s e c ur i t y c l e ar anc e i n I r an andha d be e n t he subj e c tof pr o pe rpoli c e a c t i o n. The G ov ern m en t a rg u es th a t w e m a y n ot ru l e on this i ssu e b eca u se K h a ef fa i l edto r a is e it b e fo r e th e B IA . Ac our tc an r evi ew a f i nalor derof

r em ovalonly w hen “ t he ali en has ex h a u stedallad m i n i strative re m ed i es a va i l a b l e to th e a l i en as o f ri gh t. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . “ Fai l ure toexhaustan i ss ue cr eat es a j uri sdi c t i onalbar as to tha t i ssu e.” R oyv. A sh cr oft , 3 8 9 F .3 d1 3 2 , 1 3 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “A n a lie n fa ils t o e xha us thi s a dm i ni s t r at iver e m e di e s w i t h r e s pe c t t o an i s s ue w he n t he i s s ue i s no tr ai s e d i n t he f

i r s ti ns t anc e be f

o r e t he B IA

- eit he ro n dir e c ta ppe alo ri n a m oti on to reop en . ” I d. Bec as e Khae f

di d no tr ai s e t he s e fac t ualc hall e nge s i n a p r o c e e d in gb e fo r e th e B IA , w e m a yn o t c o n s id e rth e m n o w . Se ei d. K h a e f a ls o a r g u e s t h a t th e I J e r r e din f in d in gt h a t h e w a s n o t a cr e d ib le w i t ne s s . H e a r gue s t hatt he I J’ s f i ndi ng t hathe had a pr o pe ns i t y t o w ar ds f r aud b e c a u s e o f h is p r io r m a r r ia g e fr a u d c o n v ic tio n a n dth e d is c r e p a n c ie s b e tw e e n h is o r ala nd wr i t t e n a s s e r t i o ns w e r e i ns uf f i c i en tto f

i nd h i m i nc r e dibl e und e rt he t ot al i t y of

t h e circum st an ces. B ecau se Kh aef

f i l ed h i s app l i cat i on f

or r el i ef i n 2 006 , this case i s governed b yth e n e w stand ards setf ort h i n t h e R E A L I D A ctf or eval u ati n g w i t n ess c r e d ib ilityin a s y l u m a n dw ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l ca s e s . S ee8 U. S . C. § 1 158(b) ( 1) ( B ) (i i) , (i i i) ; 8 U . S. C . § 1231(b) ( 3) ( C ) ; R E A L ID A c t§ 101(h) ( 2) , Pu b. L. 1 09
- 13 , 1 19 St at . 3 02 , 3 05 . I ti s t he fac t f i nde r ’ s duty t o m ak e de t e r m i nat i o ns bas ed on t he c r edibi l i t y of t he w i t nes se s, and t hi s c our t c annot subs t i tu te i ts j u dg m en tf

or th at of

t h e B IAor IJ w i t h res pect to fa ctua lf i n di n gs based onN o. 08- 60534

3 cred ib i l i ty d eterm i n a tio n s . Chu n v . I NS , 4 0 F .3 d7 6 , 7 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A credibi l i t y f

i n di n g i s a fi n di n g of facttha tis revi ew ed f or su bstanti alevi den ce. S ee V i d al v. G on zales , 491 F. 3 d 2 5 0 , 2 54 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) . U nders ubst ant i al evi den ce revi ew , t h i s court m ay not reverse a f i n di n g u n l ess t h e ev id en ce c o m p e ls it. I

NS v . El i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 -8 4 (1 9 9 2 ). K haef s ubm i t t ed an i n i ti alappl i c at i on denying m i str eat m entand an am e nde d a ppli c at i o n i n whi c h he a l l e ge d thathe w as m erel y har as s e d a nd qu est i on ed. A thi s heari n g, Kh aef f i rsta l l egedtha th e h adbeen detai n ed on ce f or t w o day s and once f or th ree d ays an d that he w as beaten d u ri n g t h e f i rstof t h ese det en t i on s. Th e I J f o und thedi scr epa n cy bet w een Kh aef ’ s or alan d w rit t en a s s e r tio n s s ig n ific a n t b e c a u s e th e a s s e r tio n s w e n t t o t h e h e a r t o f Kh a e f’s c la im s f or r el i ef. Th e I J al so noted t h at Kh a e f h adbeen previ ou sly convic t ed of m ar r i ag e f

r audi n a n a t t e m ptt o g ai n i m m i gr at i o n b e ne f i t s , a nd the I J f

o und t hat t hi s c o nvi c t i o n de m o ns t r at e d a pr o pe ns i t y t o w ar ds f r aud . Con s i de r i ng t he t ot al i t y o f

t he c i r c um st ance s, t he e vi denc e i n t hi s c as e do es not c om pelr eve r sa l o f th e IJ ’ s a d v e r s e cr e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n . Se eEl i as - Zac ar i as , 50 2 U . S . at 483- 84 ;se e also § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( B )(ii i) (s p e c if y in gc r it e r ia a ll o w in gp e t it io n e r ’s c r e dibl e t e s t i m o ny t o c o ns t i t ut e s o l e s upp o r tf o rs us t ai ni ng bur de n o f pr o vi ng e lig ib ilityfo ra s y lu m ). B eca u se “[w ]e ca n n ot su b sti tu te ou r j u d gm en t f or th a t of

the B IAor IJ w i t h res pect t o t h e credibi l i t y of the w i t n esses or u l t i m ate fact u alf i n di n gs based on cr edibi l i t y determ i n ati on s . . . w e w il lnot r evi ew deci si on s t u rni n g pu rely on th e im m i gr a ti on j u d ge ’ s as ses sm en t of th e a l i en pe titi on er’ s cred ib i l i ty. ” Chun , 40 F. 3d at78. The d en i a lof r eli ef i n t hi s c as e w as bas ed o n t he f i ndi ng t hat K h a e f fa i l edto pro vid e a plau sibl e claim , an dthe ad ve rse cre d ib i l i ty d e te r m in a tio n w a s s u p p o r te db ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . W e th ere fore d ecli n e to r e v ie w th e d e c is io n d e n y in gre lie f in th is ca s e . S e eid . T h e petit i on f

or r evi ew i s D ISM ISS E D I N P A R T f or la ck of

j u ri sdi ct i on a ndDEN I ED I N PART.N o. 08- 60534

4