FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCT 15, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 10 82 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 70 -9 04 -5 03

TERRY ADEDIRAN,
Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us
U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,
Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 5, 2 01 0)
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:Terry Ade di ran , a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Nig eri a, pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of th e

Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) or de r de nyin g he r ap pl ic at io ns fo r as y lu m an d c an cel la ti on of rem ov al un de r

t h e I mm ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 29 b( b) (1 ). O n
ap pe al , Ade di ran ar g ue s th at : (1 ) th e IJ erre d in de nyin g he r ap pl ic at io n fo r

can cel la ti on of

rem ov al ba se d o n a n a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, an d bec au se
th e IJ fai le d t o fo ll ow t he co rrec t l eg al st an da rd as a rti cu la te d i n M at te r of Rec in as , 23 I&N Dec. 46 7 (BIA 20 02 ); an d (2 ) th e BIA erre d in m ak in g an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n to de ny he r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m be cau se t h e IJ fai le d to co ns id er

te st im on y sh e ga ve at a pr io r m eri ts he ari ng , an d th e BIA fai le d to ack no wled ge th at
sh e “ cl eare d up ” th e in co ns is te nc ie s ci te d by th e IJ

. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we de ny
th e p et it io n i n p art , and di sm is s i t i n p art

. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s de ci si on on ly, ex cep t to th e ex te nt th at it ex pr es sl y ad op ts
th e IJ ’s op in io n or reas on in g. Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 25 7 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 01 ). W e rev ie w su bjec t mat t e r ju r is di ct io n de no vo
. Res en di z-Al cara z v. U.S.
Att ’y Gen ., 38 3 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 66 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). The BIA’s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns , in cl ud in g cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , ar e re vie w ed un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st ,

an d we “ m

us t affi rm th e
. . . de ci si on if it is su pp or te d by reas on ab le , su bs ta nt ia l, an d

pr ob at iv e e v i d e n c e o n th e reco rd co ns id ered as a who le .” Ru iz v. U.S. At t’y Gen .,

244 0 F.3 d 12 47 , 12 54 -5 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. A “ fin di ng of fact wil l

be rev ers ed on ly whe n th e r e co rd co m pe ls a rev ers al ; th e m ere fact th at th e reco rd

m ay su pp or t a co nt rary co nc lu si on i s n o t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of th e
ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Id . at 1 25 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Fi rs t, we reject Ade di ran ’s cl ai m th at th e IJ erre d in de nyin g he r ap pl ic at io n fo r

can cel la ti on of r e mo va l. The Att or ne y Gen eral m ay can cel th e rem ov al of a

no n pe rm an en t res id en t who es ta bl is he s, in pa rt, th at rem ov al wou ld cau se

“ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip to th e al ie n’s

. . . ch il d, who is a ci ti zen
of th e Uni te d Stat es .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 )(D). Howev er, the INA pr ov id es th at

no c o u r t h a s juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w “ an y jud gm en t reg ard in g th e gr an ti ng of rel ie f

un de r se ct io n
. . . 12 29 b

. . . of th is ti tl e.” 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (B)( i). Nev ert he le ss ,

we ret ai n juri sd ic ti on t o c o ns id er co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or le ga l qu es ti on s rel at ed to

can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D); Mar ti ne z v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 6
F.3 d 12 19 , 12 21 -2 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). Bu t “ [n ]otwi th st an di ng Co ng res s’s en act m en t
of § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D), we co nt in ue to la ck ju r i s d i ct io n ov er th e BIA’s pu rel y
di sc ret io na ry de ci si on th at a pe ti ti on er di d no t m eet § 12 29 b( b) (1 )(D)’s ‘excep ti on al

an d e xt rem el y

un us ua l h ard sh ip ’ st an da rd .” Mar ti ne z, 44 6 F.3d at 1 22 2- 23 . W he n

ex am in in g a pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w, we “ m us t fir st c o n si de r whe th er we ha ve su bjec t

m at te r juri sd ic ti on to he ar t he pe ti ti on at a ll .” Res en di z-Al cara z, 38 3 F .3d at 1 26 6.

3Co nt rary to Ade di ran ’s arg um en t on ap p eal , th e BIA di d no t de ny he r

ap pl ic at io n fo r canc el la

tio n of re m oval ba se d on an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n.
Rat he r, it co nc lu de d th at Ade di ran fai le d to de m on st rat e th at he r ch il dr en wou ld face

“ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip .” W e th e r e f o r e la ck juri sd ic ti on to

rev ie w t h e B I A’ s pu rel y di sc ret io na ry de ci si on th at Ade di ran di d no t m eet §
12 29 b( b) (1 )(D)’s “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” st an da rd , d e s pi te
be in g t he so le fin an ci al su pp or t fo r he r ch il dr en
. W e d o h a v e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w whe th er th e IJ fo ll owe d th e co rrec t le ga l

st an da rd in as se ss in g he r ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on fo r r e mov al

. Howev er, th is

arg um en t is wit ho ut m eri t be cau se th e IJ , in it s de ci si on , sp eci fic al ly ap pl ie d Rec in as

to th e fact s in su pp o r t of it s co nc lu si on , an d th e BIA affi rm ed th at de ci si on
. Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t he pe ti ti on in pa rt a s it rela te s t o c an cel la ti on of r em ov al ,

an d d en y th e p et it io n i n p art

. W e al so are un pe rs ua de d by Ade di ran ’s arg um en t th at th e BIA erre d in m ak in g

an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n to de ny he r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m
. “ To es ta bl is h

as y lu m el ig ib il it y ba se d on [rel ig io n]

. . . t h e al ie n m us t, wit h cred ib le ev id en ce,

es ta bl is h (1 ) pa st pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of he r [rel ig io n]

. . . , or (2 ) a ‘w el l-f ou nd ed
fear ’ th at he r [rel ig io n] . . . will cau se fut ur e p ers ecu ti on .” Sep ul ve da v. U.S. At t’y
Gen ., 40 1 F.3 d 12 26 , 12 30 -3 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a), (b )).

4The ap pl ic an t be ars th e bu rd en of pr oo f in es ta bl is hi ng he r el ig ib il it y fo r as y lu m
. Id

.

at 1 2 3 0

. The ap pl ic an t m ay sa ti sf y he r bu rd en so le ly th ro ug h te st im on y th at is

“ cred ib le , d ire ct , a nd sp eci fic ,” wit ho ut th e ne ed fo r co rro bo rat io n. Fo r g u e v . U.S.
Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F.3 d 12 82 , 12 87 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Co nv ers e ly, an ad ve rs e
cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n alo ne m ay be su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e de ni al of an as y lu m
ap pl ic at io n.” Id

. “ Onc e an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng is m ad e, th e bu rd en is on th e
ap p l i c a nt al ie n to sh ow th at th e [BIA]’ s cred ib il it y de ci si on was no t su pp or te d by ‘spe ci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as ed on su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id

. W e m ay no t rev ie w a fin al or de r of rem ov al un le ss “ th e al ie n ha s ex ha us te d al l
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai la bl e to th e al ie n as of rig ht .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ). If

an al ie n ha s fai le d to ex ha us t he r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, we la c k ju ris di ct io n to

co ns id er th e cl ai m
. Am ay a-Art un du ag a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 46 3 F.3 d 12 47 , 12 50 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6)

. As an in it ia l m at te r, Ade di ran fai le d to arg ue to th e BIA th at th e IJ erre d by no t

r e v i e w i n g te st im on y sh e ga ve at a pr io r m eri ts he ari ng whe n m ak in g it s ad ve r s e
cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n. The refo re, sh e fai le d t o ex ha us t he r ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s an d we l ack juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th is cla im

. Mo reo ve r, th e BIA’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm ina tio n is supp or te d by sp eci fic ,

co ge nt reas on s. In pa rti cu la r, th e BIA no te d th at (1 ) Ade di ran te st ifi ed th at on e of he r

5br ot he rs was k i l le d by Mu sl im s, bu t on ly m en ti on ed in he r as y lu m ap pl ic at io n th at

he r br o t h e r s w e re “ fear ed de ad ”; (2 ) Ade di ran fai le d to di sc lo se on he r ap pl ic at io n
th at sh e was st ab be d in th e ne ck , th e wor st ha rm sh e ev er ex pe rie nc ed in Nig eri a; an d (3 ) A d e d i r a n t es ti fie d th at a m eet in g of Ch ris ti an s was br ok en up by Mu sl im s
sh oo ti ng gu ns , bu t la te r di sa vo wed th at cl ai m by ad m it ti ng th at sh e sa w no gu ns an d
he ard no gu ns ho ts

. The BIA sp eci fic al ly ack no wled ge d Ade di ran ’s ex pl an at io ns fo r
th es e in co ns is te nc ie s, whi ch co ns is te d of ei th er no t kn owi ng or no t rem em be rin g an y
de ta il s. The se ex pl an at io ns do no t “ cl ear up ” an y of th e in co ns is te nc ie s ci te d by th e
BIA. The refo re, th e reco rd do es no t co m pe l rev ers al of th e BIA’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n.
B u t e v e n if th e BIA erre d, Ade di ran di d no t ch al le ng e th e BIA’s al te rn at iv e
fin d i n g th at , ev en if cred ib le , sh e fai le d to de m on st rat e th at sh e su ffer ed pa st

pe rs ecu ti on or th at sh e ha s a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on
. The refo re, sh e
ha s ab an do ne d a n y cl ai m of erro r as to th e BIA’s al te rn at iv e, di sp os it iv e ho ld in g
de nyin g he r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m
. See Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F.3 d at 12 28 n.2 (is su es no t
rai se d on ap pe al are ab an do ne d)

. Acco rd in gl y , we de ny th e pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w wit h

res pe ct to th is is su e.
PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, DENIED I N PART.

6