2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-11-2008 

# Lin v . Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-2883

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 447. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/447P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 06- 2883

_____________ BI N L I N, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 98- 358- 506) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M i r l ande Tadal

A r gued M ar ch 14, 2008 Be f o r e : F UE NT E S , CH AGAR E S , a n d VAN AN T WER P E N,

C i rcui tJudg es.
( Fi l ed: Sept ember11, 2008)

T hom as V

. M as s ucci ( A r gued) 401 B r oadw ay , Sui t e 908 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 C ouns el forPet i t i oner2 E dw ar d J

. D uffy( A r gued) A l i s on M

. I goe Pet erD

. K ei s l er O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on C i vi l D i vi s i on U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce P. O

. B ox 878, B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20044- 0878 C ouns el forR es pondent

_____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. B i n L i n ( B i n) pet i t i ons fo r re vi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A )

. A ft er unl aw ful l yent er i ng the coun tryand bei ng pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , B i n appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e ( CA T )

. He gr ounded thes e cl ai m s on hi s al l eged a rr es t s and abus e i n C hi na for engagi ng i n a sp ir i tual

- m edi t at i ve pr act i ce c al l ed Fal un G ong. F o ll o w ing a h ea ri n g , a n Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (IJ) de n ied B in’s c laim s f o r tw o re a so n s: f

irst, th a t B in ’s te stim o n yin su p p o rt o f h is cl ai m s w as n otcr edi bl e, and s econd, thateven i f the t es t i m ony w er e cr edi bl e, i t fai l ed t o m eet the burde ns of pr oof nec es s aryfor the r eques t ed form s of r el i ef. B i n then appe al ed t o the B I A

. T he G o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s tha t B in f a iled to c o n tes t th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty d eterm ination in h is ap p ea l to the B IA , an d that w e a re the ref o re w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r B in ’s p e titio n to th is C o u rt
. W e a g re e th a t B in f

a iled to ra ise th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi nd i ng i n h i s app eal t o the B IA

. W e ho l d, ho w ever, that because th e B I A n o n e th e les s c o n sid e re d th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, the is s ue w as s uffi ci ent l yexhaus t ed t o pr ovi de us w i th j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t
. E xer ci s i ng thi s j ur i s di ct i on, w e fi nd thats ubs t ant i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt s th e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, and a c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .H e l at ert es t i fi ed thathi s i nt ent i on w as t o s eek as y l um and 1 that he on l yres po nd ed ini t i al l yas he did b e c a u se h e w as “so t ens e. ” A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d ( A

. R

. ) 83. A s p a rt o f h is a p p lica tio n , B in su b m itt e d a w ritten a f f id a v it 2 conce r ni ng hi s r eas ons fors eeki ng pol i t i cal as y l um . T he I J bas ed h er c r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i n l ar ge parton the per cei ved d isc re p a n c ie s b e tw e e n B in ’s a f f id a v it an d h is te stim o n ya t a h e a ri n g b e f

o re th e IJ

. T he St at e D epart m entR eporto n C hi na i ndi cat es thatFal un 3 Go n g i s a “ s p i r i tu a l mo v e me n t
. . . th a tb l e n d s a s p e c t s o f Ta o i s m, B uddhi s m , and the m edi t at i ve t echni ques and phy s i cal exer ci s es of qigo n g ( a tr adi t i onal C hi nes e exe r ci s e di s ci pl i ne) w i th the t eac hi n g s of Fal un G ong founderL i H ongzhi

. . . . M any p ra c tit io n e rs b e c a m e in ter e ste d in F a lu n G o n g b e c a u se o f its p u rp o rte d h e a lt h b e n e f

its.” A .R . 1 3 0 . T h e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t, how ever , beca m e conc erned by i t s gr ow i ng popul ar i tyi n the 1990s and even tuall yl abeled i ta “cult

. ” A

. R

. 13 0. In 19 99 , the C hinese go vernm ent ban ned F al un G on g, and “[a] hars h crackd ow n ag ai nst the s o -ca ll ed ‘ev il cu lt’ f o llow ed

. ” A

. R

. 1 3 0

. “S ince Jan u ary 2 0 0 2 , the m e re b e lief

in F a lu n G o n g , e v e n w ith o u t an yp u b lic m ani fes t at i on of i t s t enet s , has been s uff ici en tgr ounds for pr act i t i oner s t o r ece i ve puni s hm ent s r angi n g fr om l os s of e m p lo ym e n t to im p ri s o n m e n t.” A .R . 1 3 0

. 3 I. B in is a 2 3 -ye a r-o ld n ati v e a n d cit izen o f th e P eo p le’s R epubl i c of Chi na. O n O ct ober 1, 2004, B i n arr i ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es throug h M exico. W hen app roached byB order Patr ol agent s, he s t at ed thathe ent ered the countryt o fi nd w or k. H e w as 1 s ubs equent l yp l a c e di n r e m oval pr ocee di ngs , w her e he a dm i t t ed the f a c tu a l a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s th i m a n d c o n c e d e d h i s r e m o v a b i l i ty. T her eaf t er , B i n s ubm i t t ed hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i thhol di ng o f r e mov a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T. 2
A ta F eb ruary24, 2005 hear i ng befor e the I J , B i n t es t i fi ed on hi s ow n behal f. H e expl ai ned thathe b egan pr act i ci ng Fal un G ong i n 1998, w hen he w as i n the fi fth gr ade, beca us e he s uffe r ed

3T o av o id rep eti ti o n , w e re co u n t th e c o n tents o f B in’s 4 w r i t t en af

fid avi tand cr os s - exami nat i on, w her e appl i cabl e, i n the d is c u s s io n s e c tio n o f

th e o p in io n a n d o m it th e m h e re .

4 fr om i nfl amm at orydi s eas es of the s t om ach and i nt es t i ne and that nei ther“W es t ern trai ned” medi cal doct or s nor“C hi nes e herbal d o c to rs” w e re a b le to a llev iate h is s ym p to m s. A .R . 7 5 . A s a re su lt, B i n b eg an t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong w hen hi s m other ’ s fr i end c o n v in c e d h im th a t it w o u ld h e lp h is illn e ss e s. N o o n e e lse in h is fami l ypr act i ced, s o B i n boughts om e books and a vi deo on Fal un G o n g . O n d ire c t ex a m in a tio n , B in tes tifie d th a t h e p ra c tice d w ith o th e r F a lu n G o n g p ra c titio n e rs a t a n e a rb yp a rk “ o n c e o r t w ic e ,” tho ug h the I J foun d thatB i n co ntr a d i ct ed h i m sel f on cross exami nat i on. A

. R

. 77. 4
B i n cl ai m ed that he w as arr es t ed tw i ce forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong, fi r s ti n A ugus t1999 and agai n i n J anuary2004. H e t es t i fi ed thatthe fi r s tt i m e, fi ve ors i x pol i ce of fi cer s came t o hi s hous e, t ook hi m b y fo rce , and di d notgi ve a r eas on forhi s arr es t
. A ccor di ng to B in , the o f

f ice rs in ter ro g a ted a n d b e a t h im b a d ly , b u t h e c o u ld n o tr e c a l l t h e s u b s t a n c e o f th e i rq u e s t i o n i n g . Bi n s t a t e d th a ttwo day s l at er , he w as s entt o a det ent i on cent eri n Q w an D o , C hi na, w her e he w as det ai ned form or e than tw o m onths

. B i n t est i fi ed that m a n yotheri nm at es w ere det ai ned there becau se theyal so pr act i c e d Fa l u n Gon g . He s t a t e d th a t h e was b e a t e n byt he a u th o rities

— h it an d k ick e d in th e leg a n d b e a ten w ith a c lu b . B in cl ai m ed thathe w as eventual l yr el eas ed, tw o m onths l at er , aft erhe s i gned a docum ent s t at i ng that he w oul d neverpr act i ce Fal un G ong a g a in

. A ccor di ng t o B i n, he w as arr es t ed agai n i n J anuary2004 and a c c u se d o f p ra c ticin g F a lu n G o n g . T h e a u th o rities d e tain e d h im f o ro n e mo n th a n d d i d n o ta l l o w h i s mo th e rt o v i s i th i m. He cl ai m ed t h at h e w as beat en once w hi l e det ai ned, and thathe s uffe r ed brui s es . H e al l eged that hi s m otherw as al s o i nt err ogat ed aft erhi s det ent i on. H e w as r el eas ed on J anua ry15, 2004, and d e p a rt e d C h in a in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 4

.5 O n M ar ch 3 , 2005, the I J deni ed B i n’ s appl i cat i ons for as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on and or der ed h im re m o v e d . T h e IJ d e n ied a sy lu m f o r tw o d istin c t r e a so n s. F irst, even a s s um i ng B i n’ s t es t i m ony w as truthful , the evi dence di d not s uppor ta fi ndi ng of past p ersecut i on ora w el l

- founded f earof per s ecut i on as i s r equi r ed t o pr evai l on an as y l um cl ai m . Second, th e IJ f o u n d B in n o t c re d ib le d u e to m a ter ial in c o n sis ten c ies w ith in h is te stim o n ya n d b e tw e e n h is te stim o n ya n d h is w ritten a f f id a v it. Speci fi cal l y , the IJ det erm i ned t hatw hi l e B i n’ s aff i davi ts t at ed that the p o li ce told B in the rea so n fo r h is fir st arrest, h e testi fied b ef o re the I J that the pol i ce gave no r eas on forthe arr es t
. I n addi t i on, the I J det erm i ned thatB i n t es t i fi ed i ncons i s t ent l yabou tw her e, and w ith w h o m , h e p rac ti ce d F alun G o n g af ter his firstarrest. T h e IJ al s o found thatB i n di d notm eetthe more ex act i ng s t andar d for wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mov a l o rth e s t a n d a r d f o rr e l i e f under t he CAT. O n M ar ch 7, 2005, B i n, thr ough h i s pr i orcouns el , fi l ed a n o ti ce o f ap p ea l w ith the B IA

. T h e n o ti ce o f a p p ea l did n o t assert w h ich iss u e s B in w a s a p p e a lin g b u t in ste a d sta ted th a t h e w o u ld fi l e a s epar at e br i ef. I n the s epar at e br i ef, B i n l i s t ed the fol l ow i ng a rg u m e n ts: I

. T HE I J ERRE D I N F I NDI NG T HAT [B IN ]’S A R R E S T S A N D D E T E N T IO N IN 1 9 9 9 AN D 2004 D I D N OT C ON STI TUTE P E RS E CU T I ON WI T HI N THE M E ANI NG O F T H E I M M I G R ATI O N AND N A T I O N A L I T Y A C T ( “IN A ”); RESP ON DEN T CLEAR LY SU FF ERED P E RS E CU T I ON AT TH E HANDS OF T HE C H IN E S E G O V E RN M E N T , A N D T H U S , IS C L E A R L Y E L I G I B L E F O R A S Y L U M. I I

. T HE I J E RR ED I N F I NDI NG T HAT [ BI N] ’ S TW O DE T E NT I ONS DO NOT RI S E T O T HE L E VE L OF P E RS E CU T I ON; [ B I N ] S U F F E R E D S I GNI F I C A N T DE P RI VAT I ON OF F RE E DOM AND L I BE RT Y ON AC CO UNT OF HI S B E I NG A FAL UN G ONG P RACTI TI ONER.6 A. R. 12, 13. O n M ay4, 2006, the B I A “adopt [ed ] and a ffi r m [ed] the deci s i on of the [ IJ] to t he ext entthe [I J ] concl uded [Bi n] w as not c r e d i b l e a n d d i d n o tth e r e f o r e me e tth e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f f o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . ” A. R. 2

. T h e BI A d i d n o ta d d r e s s Bi n ’ s two a lleg a tio n s o f e rro r, h a v in g in ste a d a d o p ted th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. II

. W e gene r al l yhave j ur i s di ct i on t o rev iew a fi nal or derof re m o v a l u n der sect i on 24 2(a) (1) of th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t (IN A ). S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ); Y a n L a n W u v . A sh c ro f t, 3 9 3 F

. 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. S e c t i o n 2 4 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) o f t h e I NA, how ever , l i m i t s our j ur i s di ct i on t o cas es w her e a pet i t i on er “has e x h a u s te d a ll a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a v a ila b le a s o f ri g h t . . . .” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 5 2( d) ( 1) ; s ee A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 5 8 7 , 5 9 4 -9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W her e w e do have j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n a p et i t i on for r evi ew and “the B I A adopt ed the I J ’ s opi ni on, w e tr eatthatopi ni on as the opi ni on of the [BIA ]

. ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 155 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e r evi ew the I J ’ s opi ni on t o the ext ent the B I A r el i ed upon i t
. W ang v. A t t ’ yG en. , 423 F. 3d 260, 2 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). R e v iew o f a n IJ’ s d e c isio n , inc lu d in g a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat ion , “i s conduct ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d w hi ch r equi r es thatadmi ni s tr at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctbe u p h e ld ‘u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to concl ude t o the cont r ary . ’ ” C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) (quo t i ng 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 52 (b) (4) (B ))

. In ot her w ords, adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e affor ded def er ence pr ovi ded the I J “s uppl [i es ] s peci fi c, cogent r eas ons w hythe appl i canti s not cre d ible. ” C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F

. 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2007) ; G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 276 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. U nder the l aw appl i cabl e t o B i n’ s pet i t i on, the i ncons i s t enci es i dent i fi ed byth e I J m us tnotbe “mi nor ” and mustgo t o the hea r tof theB i n’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef a nt edat e the change i n l aw br ought 5 by the R E A L I D A ct of 2005. See K ai t a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 522 F

. 3d 288, 296 & n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( expl ai ni ng that for cl ai m s fi l ed af t er M ay 11, 2005, 8 U

. S. C

. § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) perm i t s an I J t o m ake “a c r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat ion

. . . w i thoutr egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o the heartof the ap p li ca n t’ s claim ”) (q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 7 pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m . G abuni y a v. A t t ’ yG en. , 463 F. 3d 316, 322 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 5
III

. T he G overnm entar gues thatB i n di d notr ai s e th e is s ue of th e IJ’ s c r e d ib ilityd e ter m in a tio n to th e B IA , the re b yf a ili n g to exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , and thus depr i vi ng us of j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1252( d) ( 1)

. B in co unt er s thatw e have ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e cred ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n b e c a u se h e d id ra ise th e iss u e b e f

o re th e B IA , the re b ye x h a u s tin g h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies

. In th e a ltern a tiv e , B in a rg u e s tha t e v e n if h e d id n o t r a ise th e c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n , th e B IA ’s s u a sp o n te cons i der ati o n o f t he i s s ue pr ovi des us w i th j ur i s di ct i on. Forthe rea so n s d iscu ssed b elow , w e co n clud e tha t B in d id n o t r aise the IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing to the B IA , b u t be c a u s e the B IA cons i der ed the cr edi bi l i tyi s s ue s ua s pont e, w e none thel es s have ju risd ictio n to re v iew it. A

. A s s t at ed ea r l i er, u nder§ 1252( d) ( 1) , “a c our tm ayr evi ew a f i nal order of r em ov al on l y i f [] the al i en has exh aust ed a ll admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avail ab le to the al i en as of r i ght

. . . . ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( d) ( 1)

. T he part i es di s put e w hatC ongr es s m eantby the t erm “admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” W hi l e ourj ur i s prudence has been l es s than cl ear as t o w hetherthe s t atut e r equi r es exhaus t i on of ad m ini s tr at i ve pr ocedur es , claim s, o r i ssu es, co m p are K h an v . A tt ’y G en. , 448 F.3d 226, 236 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w i th Z heng v. G on zal es, 41 7 F

. 3d 37 9, 38 3 (3d C i r. 20 05 ), w e are b ou nd bytho se o p inion s tha t hav e interp reted issue ex h a u sti o n as a statu toryO ver the l as t s ever al y ear s , a num ber of ours i s t ercourt s of 6 a p p e a ls h a v e stru g g led w ith “ th e q u e stio n w h e th e r th e f a ilu re to r a i s e an is s ue b e f

o re th e B IA is a ju risd ictio n a lly -f a tal f a ilu re to exhaus tan admi ni s tr at i ve r em edy f o r p u rp o s e s o f 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) , ors i m plyraises the n o n -j u ri sd ict ion al qu est i on w hether r evi ew of thati s s ue i s pr ecl uded bythe doctr i ne of a dm i ni s tr at i ve ex h au sti o n . ” Z ine v

. M u k a s e y , 5 1 7 F

. 3 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 9 -40 (8th C ir

. 2008) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) (resol vi ng the ca s e on narr ow er g r ounds s o as nott o “ent erthi s thi cket ”)

. Forexampl e, both the C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls fo r th e F ir st an d E igh th C ir c u its w ere “v ery t empt [ed] ” t o fi nd that§ 1252( d) ( 1) does notpr ecl ud e a co u rt of appea l s fr om cons i der i ng i s s ues thatan al i en di d not pr es ent t o the ag en cy . S ee S o u sa v . I. N

. S

. , 2 2 6 F

. 3 d 2 8 , 3 1 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“If w e w er e w r i t i ng on a cl ean s l at e, i t w oul d be veryt empt i ng t o tr eat [pet i t i oner ] ’ s for fei tof h is c l ai m as s om ethi ng l es s than a j ur i s di ct i onal obj ect i on. ”) ; E t chu- N j a n g v . Gon z a l e s , 403 F. 3d 577, 582 ( 8th C i r . 200 5 ). W hi l e both court s ul t i m at el yfound them sel ves bo un d b ypreceden tt o tr eati ssue exh a u stio n as a j ur i s di ct i onal r equirem en t , i ti s notcl earthattheytr eat ed i s s ue exhaus t i on as a “trul yj ur i s di ct i on al ” r equi r ement
. See Zhong v. U

. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 489 F. 3d 126, 130 n . 6 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( C al abr es i , J

. , concurr i ng i n the deni al of r ehea r i ng en banc ) (n o tin g th a t sin c e th e E tch u -N jan g a n d S o u sa c o u rts c o n tem p late exce pt i ons t o the “j ur i s di ct i onal ” i s s ue exha us t i on r equi r ement , the re q u ir e m e n t c a n n o t b e a “ tru ly ju ri s d ic tio n a l” o n e ). M or eover , thes e cas es w er e dec i ded w i thoutcons i der at i on of a l i ne of “ pow er ful s t at ement s ” bythe Supr eme C our t“that court s s houl d be r el uct antt o m ake i s s ues j ur i s di ct i onal r atherthan m andat ory unl es s s t atut ory l anguage r equi r es i t
. . . . ” Zhong, 489 F. 3d at134 ( C al abr es i , J

. concurr i ng i n the deni al of r ehea r i ng en banc) ; s ee, e. g. , A rbaugh v. Y & H C orp. , 546 U

. S. 500, 510- 11 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o t i n g th a t “ [

j ] u r i s d i c t i o n . . . i s a w o r d o f m a n y, t o o m a n y, m eanings” and that t he S up rem e C ou rt , “no l ess than othercou rt s, 8 r equi r ement
. See, e. g. , K i bi nda v. A t t ’ yG en. , 477 F. 3d 113, 120 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng pet i t i oner ’ s unr ai s ed i s s ue unexha us t ed and th u s p r e c l u d e d b y§ 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ’ s “ s t a tu t o ry[ e x h a u s t i o n] r e q u i r e me n t ” ) ; Ab d u l r a h ma n , 3 3 0 F

. 3 d a t5 9 4

- 9 5 ( s a me )

. As 6has s om et i m es been pr o fli g ate i n i t s us e of the t erm , ” but caut i oni ng that“unr efi ned di s pos i t i ons . . . s houl d be ac cor ded no pr ece dent i al eff

ecton the ques t i on w hetherthe fe der al courthad author i tyt o adj udi cat e t h e clai m i n s ui t ”) ( quot at i on m arks o m itte d ); K o n trick v . R y a n , 5 4 0 U .S . 4 4 3 , 4 5 5 (2 0 0 4 ) (“ C lar ity w oul d be fa ci l i t at ed i f court s and l i t i gant s us ed the l abel

‘ j ur i s di ct i onal ’ notforcl ai m -pr oces s i ng rul es , butonl yfor pr es cr i pt i ons del i neat i ng the cl as s es of ca s es ( s ubj ect
- m att er ju risd ictio n ) a n d th e p e rso n s (p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n ) f a lli n g w ith in a co u rt ’s a d

jud icatoryau tho ri ty
. ”). I n li g h t of the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s re p e a ted a d m o n iti o n s, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it r ece nt l yr evi s i t ed i t s i s s ue exha us t i on j ur i s prudence and hel d that i s s ue exha us t i on i s a manda tory , though notj ur i s di ct i onal , rul e. S ee Z h o n g v . U

. S

. D ep ’to f Ju sti ce , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 0 4 , 1 0 7 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); se e a lso K o rsu n sk iyv . G o n z a les , 4 6 1 F .3 d 8 4 7 , 8 4 9 (7 th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng, i n l i ghtof the r ece nt Supr eme Courtcas es , that “[e ] xhaus t i on i s a condi t i on t o su cc ess i n courtbutnota l i m i ton t h e s e t o f c a s e s th a t th e ju d ic ia ry h a s b e e n a s s ig n e d to re s o lv e ” ). T hus , w hi l e ther e i s r eas on t o cas tdoubtupon the cont i nui ng val i di tyof ourpr ece denthol di ng thati s s ue exha us t i on is a j u risd ictio n a l ru le, sh o rt o f a re v iew e n b a n c , w e m u st d u tifu lly a p p ly th a t p re c e d e n t. 9 co m p are d to jud ici all y -craf ted e x h au sti o n d o c tr ines , statu tory exhaus t i on r equi r em ent s depr i ve us of j ur i s di ct i on overa gi ven ca se. M etro. L ife In s. C o . v . P ri ce , 5 0 1 F

. 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 8 -79 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); see X ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 9 F

. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 n . 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , a p e tit io n e r is d e e m e d to h a v e “ e x h a u ste d a ll admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1252( d) ( 1) , and ther eby “pr es erves the r i ghtof j udi ci al r evi ew , ” A dbul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at 5 9 4 -9 5 , if h e o r sh e ra ise s a ll is s u e s b e f o re th e B IA . W e d o n o t, how ever , appl ythi s pr i nci pl e i n a dr aconi an fa s hi on. See J os eph v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 6 5 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (no ti n g the C o u rt ’s “li b era l e xhaus t i on pol i cy ”)

. I ndeed, “s o l ong as an i m m i gr at i on pet i t i onerm akes s om e ef for t , how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the B o a rd o n n o tice o f

a stra ig h tf

o rw a rd iss u e b e in g ra ise d o n a p p e a l, a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhausted heradmi ni s tr at i ve10 re m e d ies .” Id . (q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); se e B h isk i v . A sh c ro f t, 373 F. 3d 363, 367- 68 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; Y an Lan W u, 393 F. 3d at422 (expl ai ning B his ki and ob se rv in g that“w hen a cl ai m i s not s o co m p lex a s to req u ir e a su p p o rt ing b ri ef , sim p lyp u tt ing the B o ard o n n o tic e th ro u g h a N o tic e o f A p p e a l is s u f

f ic ie n t” ). For ex am pl e, i n A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , pet i t i oner A b d u lra h m a n a rg u e d to th e B IA “ th a t th e IJ e rre d in h e r c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n a n d th a t h e r f in d in g s w e re n o t su b sta n tially su p p o r ted b yth e e v id e n c e .” 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 4 . B e f o re th is C o u rt, A dbul r ahman t hen as s erted that“the I J err oneous l yappl i ed the m o re strin g e n t ‘m o re lik e lyth a n n o t’ sta n d a rd , ap p lica b le to w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , t o h i s asy l um cl ai m that he suf fered past per s ecut i on. ” I d. W e found A bdul r ahman’ s att empt t o ar gue that h e h a d ra ise d th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f iss u e b e f

o re th e B IA to b e “ in vai n. ” I d. at595. N ei therhi s not i ce of appea l norhi s w r i t t en br i ef

“ v i e w e d e x p a n s i v e l y. . . e v e n s u g g e s t [ e d ] th e i s s u e . ” I d

. We o b serv ed that A b d u lr ah m an ’s asse rt ion b ef o re the B IA that the IJ

“ e rre d a s a m a tter o f

law a n d d isc re tio n ,” w a s a “ g e n e ra lize d c laim [that ] di d notal ertthe B oar d t o the i s s ue he [ s ought ] t o r ai s e forthe fi r s tt i m e her e. ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed); s ee J os eph, 465 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 (f

in d in g a n iss u e n o t ex h a u ste d w h e r e “ p e tit io n e r d id n o thing to alert th e B IA that h e w ishe d to ap p ea l th e IJ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t h e w a s n o t p rim a fa c ie el i gi bl e for natur al i zat i on”)

. A s A bdul r ahman had fai l ed t o putthe B oar d on n o t i c e o f

th e i s s u e th a th e th e n r a i s e d b e f o r e th i s Co u r t , we ap pr opr i at el y decl i ned t o i nt erf ere w it h the a g en cy ’s deci s i onm aki ng pr oces s by rul i ng on a cont ent i on the B I A had not a d d re s s e d . A b d u lr a h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 4 -9 5

. I n Y an Lan W u v. A s hcr oft , pet i t i onerY an ar gued i n her N ot i ce of A ppeal t o the B I A that“the I m m i gr at i on J udge i gnor ed the fa ctthat [her] fat h er w as j ai l ed an d tor tured bythe C hinese g o v e rn m e n t as a n u n d e rg ro u n d C h ristia n in C h in a , an d e rre d in fi ndi ng t hat[s he] does n’ thave a fea rof [the] C hi nes e governm ent b u t th e loc al p eo p le. ” 3 9 3 F

. 3 d at 4 2 2 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A ddi t i onal l y , i n hers uppor t i ng br i ef Y an cl ai m ed thats he had “present ed suffici ent ev i den ce t o the effect t hat she has face[ d] past per s ecut i on and w i l l fac e futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof her Ch r i s t i a n f

a i th , ” “ th a t p o l i c e r a i d e d [ h e r ] h o me , a n d th a th e rh o me11 w as u n d er su rve il lanc e.” Id

. (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itt ed ). B ef o re ourC our t , Y an arg u ed thatthe I J i m pr oper l yr el i ed on a p reli m inarystat em en t she h ad m ad e at th e airpo rt an d that the IJ’s deci s i on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al ev iden ce. T he G overnm ent cont ended thatY an fa i l ed t o exhaus ther admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , assert i ng thatY an “i nt i m at es thatthe I m m i gr at i on J ud ge’ s r el i ance on the [a i rpor t ] s t at ementw as m i s pl ace d butthatthi s ar gum entw as nev er r ai s ed bef or e the I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e o ro n a p p e a l t o th e B o a r d

. . . . ” I d

. We neverthel es s found thatY an di d “cont end i n herN ot i ce of A ppeal thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s concl us i on [w as ] nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence w i thi n the r ecor d, ” and thus the B I A “w as put on not i ce thatther e w as a cl ai m of err orhover i ng ar ound the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s fi ndi ngs an d , cons equent l y , herexcl us i ve r el i ance on t he airp o r ti nt ervi ew , dur i ng i t s r evi ew de novo. ” I d; see also B h iski, 3 7 3 F

. 3 d at 36 7 -69 (ex p lai n ing that p eti tio n e r’s in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l ar g u m e n t w a s e x h a u ste d d e sp ite hi s fai l ur e t o aver , i n the N ot i ce of A ppeal , thath e su ff ered p re ju d ic e , a n d d e s p ite h is f a ilu re to f

ile a s u p p o rt in g b ri e f

). I n the pr es entcas e, B i n ’ s curr entcouns el s eemed t o conce de ator al ar gum ent that B i n’ s pr evi ous couns el had fai l ed t o us e any l anguage i n hi s N ot i ce of A ppeal orbr i ef t o the B I A s uch thatthe B IA w o u ld su sp ec t a claim ed erro r e v en “h o v ering aro u n d ” the IJ’s cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on. See Y an L an W u, 393 F. 3d at4 22. B i n’ s N ot i ce of

A ppeal pr es sed n o ar gum ent s w hat s oever , but i ns t ead m er el ym ent i oned thata s epar at e w r i t t en br i ef w oul d be su b m itt e d . T h e b rie f

, in tu rn , re f

e rre d o n lyto w h e th e r B in ’s a rre sts a n d d e ten ti o n “ rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n ” o r “ c o n stitu te per s ecut i on w it hi n t he meani ng of the [I N A ]

. . . . ” A

. R

. 12, 13. T hus , unl i ke i n Y an L an W u, B i n’ s N ot i ce of A ppeal and hi s br i ef di d abs ol ut el ynot hi ng t o al ert the B I A thathe w as chal l engi ng the IJ ’s credi bil i tydeterm inat i on . Indeed , this case i s the p reci se i nver s e of A bdul r ahman: w her eas the pet i t i onerther e cha l l enged the I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs befor e the B I A butnotthe appl i cabl e l egal s t a n d a r d , h e r e , Bi n c h a l l e n g e d th e l e g a l s t a n d a r d b e f o r e th e BI A, b u t n o t th e IJ’ s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s (n a m e ly , the c re d ib ili ty d e t e r mi n a t i o n )

. S e e 3 3 0 F

. 3 d a t5 9 4

. As i n Abd u l r a h ma n , we r ej ectB i n’ s ar gum entthat he ra i s ed t he re l evanti s s ue i n thi s cas e.12 Perhaps r ecogni zi ng B i n’ s fai l ur e e x p l i ci t l yt o r ai s e the cr edi bi l i ty i s s ue t o the B I A , B i n’ s couns el m akes an al t ernat i ve cont ent i o n : si nce a n as y l um appl i cantw i thoutevi dence c o rro b o ra tin g h is c laim s o f p a st p e rse c u tio n m u st tes tifyc re d ib ly in o rd e r t o m e e t h is bu rd e n o f p ro o f , B in ’s a p p e a l to th e B IA o n ly m a k e s s e n s e if

h e is a p p e a lin g th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n . P e t’r R e p ly B r. a t 4 -5 (c iti n g L u k w a g o v . A sh c ro f t, 3 2 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 )). P u t an o th e r w a y , sin c e B in c a n n o t p re v a il o n h is l e g a l c laim s w ith o u t a lso s u c c e ss f u lly chal l engi ng the I J ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, the l att er iss u e is im p li c it i n h is a p p e a l to th e B IA . B in is a sk in g u s, in ef fe ct , t o cr eat e a br i ght

- l i ne rul e: anyt i m e an I J has m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and th ere i s no corr obor at i ng e v id e n c e , th a t is s u e is n e c e s s a ri ly b e f o re th e B IA o n a p p e a l. W e f in d n o a u th o rity to su p p o rt th is po sitio n . W e h a v e sa id th a t a s lo n g a s th e p e tit io n e r “ m a d e so m e e f f o rt to e x h a u st, a lb e it insu ff ici en t, ” w e w il l exe rcise jurisdicti o n o v er the p eti tion er’s cl ai m s . B hi s ki , 373 F. 3d at367. B i n has , how ever , m ade no suc h eff or t
. O utof r es pectforthe admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s, w e w i l l not r equi r e the B I A t o gues s w hi ch i s s ues have be en pr es ent ed and whi c h h a v e n o t
. Li k e wi s e , we wi l l n o t p u n i s h th e B I A by i nt er fer i ng i n the admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s w i th r egar d t o i s s ues that the B I A di d not addr es s . C ons i der i ng the document s s uppl i ed by B i n, w e have no r eas on t o bel i eve thathe putthe B I A on not i ce thathe w as chal l engi ng the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. C f. Y an Lan W u, 393 F. 3d at422 ( exer ci s i ng j uri sdi ct i on over p eti ti o n er’s claim s w h ere “w e [w ere ] co n fid en t that [p eti ti o n er]’s N ot i ce of A ppeal and bri ef i n s uppor t of [pet i t i oner ’ s ] appl i cat i on m ad e th e B o ard aw are o f w h at issue s w ere b ein g a p p ea led” ). A ccor di ngl y , B i n fai l ed t o r ai s e the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyi s s ue t o the B IA

. B. H avi ng det erm i ned thatB i n fai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue of the IJ’s cred ibil ityd eterm ination , w e m u st no w ad d ress B in’s c o n t e n t i o n th a twe n o n e th e l e s s h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e th e BI A, su a sp o n te, co n side red this i ssu e an d ad o p ted a n d af firm ed the IJ’s d e c isio n o n th is b a sis

. T h e re is c e rta in lya d e g re e o f c o n f u sio n inT o add t o the conf us i on, court s have t aken r el at ed, but 7 s l i g h t l yd i f

f e r e n ta p p r o a c h e s t o c o n t e n t i o n s s u c h a s Bi n ’ s . S o me court s begi n byad d ressing, as w e have i n Par tA , w hetherthe pet i t i oneri n fac tr ai s ed the r el evantcl ai m orissue , ther eby exhaus t i ng hi s orher admi ni s tr at i ve re m edi es . See, e. g. , Si dabut ar v . G o n z a les , 5 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 )

. O th e r c o u rts sk ip thi s fi r s ts t ep and f ocus s i m pl yon the fa ctthatthe B IA addr es s ed the i s s ue, s ua s pont e ornot
. See, e. g. , Z i ne, 517 F. 3d at 540. R egar dl es s , as w e di s cus s above, the r es ul t i s the s ame: the B IA ’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f a n iss u e is s u f

f icie n t to p ro v id e u s w ith ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h a t is s u e . 13 thi s ar ea. See Zi ne v. M ukas ey , 517 F. 3d 535, 540 ( 8th C i r . 2008) ( r ecogni zi ng the “di s agr eement among our s i s t er ci r cui t s on the [] ques t i on w hethera claim o r i s s ue notpr es ent ed t o the B I A , but cons i der ed bythe B I A s ua s pont e, i s j ur i s di ct i onal ly b arred for fa il u re to e x h au st ad m inistrati v e rem ed ies”). W e n o te, h o w ev er, 7 that of t he ap proxim at e ly sev en co urt s of ap peals t o ad dress w h ethe r the B IA ’s d ec isi o n to con side r an issue p rov ides the c o u rt w i th j ur i s di ct i on overthe pet i t i on forr evi ew , onl y one percur i am o p in io n b yth e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C irc u it w o u ld fi nd a courtw i thoutj ur i s di ct i on i n a ca s e s uch as thi s one. C om par e A m ay a- A r tunduaga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 463 F. 3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe rcur i am) ( hol di ng thatthe courtl acke d “j ur i s di ct i on ov era cl ai m w hen an a l i en, w i thoutexcus e or ex ce p ti o n , fa il [e d ] t o ex h au st th at claim , ” e v en th o u g h “the B IA n o n ethe less co n side r[e d ] th e u n d erly in g issue su a sp o n te”), w ith S idab u tar v. G o n za les, 5 0 3 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 -20 (10 th C ir

. 2007) ( hol di ng thatthe B I A ’ s s ua s pont e cons i der at i on of pet i t i oner s ’ cl ai m s s erved as an age ncydet erm i nat ion thatthe iss u e s w e re su f

f ic ien tlye x h a u ste d to c o n f e r th e c o u rt w ith j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1252) ; Z i ne, 517 F. 3d at540 (ac cept i ng “the a g e n c y ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e p e rse c u tio n iss u e w a s a d e q u a tely e x h a u s t e d a s t o b o th [ a s y l u m a n d wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l ] c l a i ms a n d th e re f

o re re a c h [ in g ] th e m e rits o f th e w ith h o ld in g ” c laim des pi t e the pet i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i texpl i ci t l yon appea l t o the B I A ) ; Pas ha v. G onzal es , 433 F. 3d 5 3 0 , 532- 33 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng thatw her e the B I A coul d have s um m ar i l y di s m i s s ed an appea l forfai l ur e t o rai s e an i s s ue w i th s peci fi ci ty , buti ns t ead14 af firm ed o n the m e rit s, the e x h au sti o n req u ir em en t w as w aive d ); A debe v. G onzal es , 432 F. 3d 1037, 1041 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) ( s ame) ; H as s an v. G onzal es, 4 0 3 F. 3d 429, 433 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( s ame) ; J ohns on v. A s hcr oft , 37 8 F

. 3 d 164, 170 ( 2d C i r . 2004) (sam e); see also S ing h v . G o n za les, 4 1 3 F

. 3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 0 n . 3 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (ex p lai n ing that ev e n claim s n o t exh au sted b ef o re the B IA m a yb e a d d re ss e d b y a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w h e re th e B IA su m m a rily aff i r m ed the I J ’ s ent i r e opi ni on, thus r ender i ng the IJ ’ s deci s i on the fin al ag en cyd eterm ination fo r pu rpo se o f a p p ell a te rev iew ); A r r egui n- M or eno v. M ukas ey , 511 F. 3d 1229, 1232 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (e x p lain in g th a t co u rt w a s n o t d e p ri v e d o f ju risd ictio n d e sp ite p e tit io n e r’s f

a ilu re to ra ise th e iss u e b e f o re th e B IA w h e re a ll iss u e s p re se n ted to th e IJ w e re d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n p re se n ted to the B I A ) ; cf. W i l s on v. Pena, 79 F. 3d 154, 165 ( D

. C

. C i r . 1996) ( expl ai ni ng, i n the Ti t l e V I I cont ext , that“[w ] her e the age ncyhas take n fin al act i on bas ed on an e val uat i on of the mer i t s , i tcannot lat er c o n tend that the c o m p lai n an t fail ed to ex h au st his rem ed ies”). W e agr ee w i th the l ogi c of the maj or i tyof ourfel l ow court s of app eal s on thi s i ssue a nd fi nd that w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on t o ad dress the IJ’s a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm inatio n b e ca u se th e B IA cons i der ed the i s s ue s ua s pont e. For exampl e, i n Si d abut ar v. G onzal es , pet i t i oner s ’ appea l t o the B I A chal l enged the I J ’ s d e t e rmi n a t i ons r egar di ng as y l um , but di d notcont es tthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng that pet i t i oner s w er e i nel i gi bl e for w i thhol di ng of r emoval orpr ot ect i on under the C A T

. 503 F. 3d at 1 1 1 9

. W h ile the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e T e n th C irc u it o rd in a rily wo u l d h a v e f

o u n d th a t p e t i t i o n e r s ’ f

a i l u r e t o p u r s u e th e l a t t e rtwo g ro u n d s f

o r r e lief

c o n stitu ted a f

a ilu re to e x h a u st th e ir admi ni s tr at ive rem edi es , the B I A s ua s pont e addr es s ed and rul ed o n b o th g ro u n d s. Id . T h e c o u rt o b se rv e d : [W ]hi l e § 1 25 2(d)( 1) r equ i res that an al i en ex hau st “al l admi ni s tr at i ve rem edi es , ” the B I A has the author i tyt o det erm i ne i t s agenc y ’ s admi ni s trati ve p ro c e d u re s. If

th e B IA d e e m s a n iss u e su f f ic ie n tly pr es ent ed t o cons i der i t on the mer i t s , s uch ac t i on by th e B IA e x h a u sts th e iss u e a s f a r a s th e a g e n c yis c o n c e rn e d a n d th a t is a ll § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ) re q u ire s toT he courtcl ar i fi ed that“[a ] l though w e do notfi nd thatD H S has 8 w ai ved the exha us t i on r equi r ementi n thi s cas e ( r atheri tw ai ved the req u ir em en t th at an issue b e ‘sp ec ifi ca ll y ’ raised in the n o ti ce o f a p p ea l) , w e f in d th e a u th o ritysu p p o rtin g th e w a iv e r d o c trin e p e rsu a siv e in th is cont ext
. ” I d. at1121 n. 5. Si m i l ar l y , w e fi nd thatthe age ncyhas w ai ved i t s speci fi ci tyrequi rem ent i n thi s case
. 15 confe rourj ur i s di ct i on. W her e the B I A det erm i nes 8 a n iss u e a d m in istra tiv e ly -rip e to w a rra n t it s a p p e llate r evi ew , w e w i l l not s econd- gues s thatdet erm i nat i on. I ndeed, i ti s a t ouchs t one of a dm i nis tr at i ve l aw that “th e form ul at i on of pr ocedur es [i s ] bas i cal l yt o be l eftw i thi n the di s cr et i on of the age nci es t o w hi ch C ongr ess h ad conf

i ded the r es pons i bi l i tyfor s u b s ta n tiv e ju d g m e n ts .”

. . . U n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1003. 3( b) ( “s pec ifi cityreq u ir em en t ”) , an al i en t aki ng a n a p p e a l o f

a n IJ d e c isio n “ m u s t sp e c if ica lly i d e n t i f yth e f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t , th e c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w, orbot h, thatare bei ng chal l enged. ” N othi ng i n the agenc y ’ s r egul at i ons pr ecl ude the B I A fr om w ai vi ng this requi rem ent. Indeed , the B IA has dis cret i on ary a u th o rity to d ism iss (a n d c o n v e rse ly , ac c e p t) a p p e a ls l acki ng i n s peci fi ci ty . . . . W her e the B I A has i s s ued a dec i s i o n cons i der i ng the mer i t s of an i s s ue, even s ua s pont e, [the i nt er es t s behi nd the exha us t i on rul e] h a v e b e e n f

u lf ille d

. Id . a t 1 1 2 0 -2 1 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e a re p e rsu a d e d b yth e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e T e n th Ci r c u i t ’ s r e a s o n i n g i n S i d a b u t a r . T o b e g i n w i th , th e B I A ’ s o wn r e g u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e th a tth e BI A “ m ay s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s any appea l orpor t i on of anyappea l

. . . [th at] f ai l s t o s peci fythe re a so n s f o r th e a p p e a l .

. . .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (d )(2 )(i) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); se e a lso 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .3 (b ); F o rm E O IR -2 6 . T h is p erm i s s i ve l anguage s ugges t s thati ti s w i thi n the age ncy ’s di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hen t o di s m i s s s um m ar i l yan appe al for l ack of s peci fi ci tyand w hen the B I A i s s uffi ci ent l yappr i s ed of the ap p li ca b le i ssu es to en tert ain th e a p p ea l. S ee E sp o n d a v . A tt ’y G en. , 453 F. 3d 1319, 1321 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; C f. B hi s ki , 373 F. 3d16 at368 ( expl ai ni ng thatthe perm i s s i ve t erm “m ay ” in N ot i ce of A p p e a l F o rm E O IR -2 6 s u g g e sts “ th a t th e a g e n c yb e liev e s th a t a br i ef i s notnece s s ary in al l cas es ”)

. G i ven the B I A ’ s s ubs t ant i al e x p e rie n c e d e a lin g w ith a p p e a ls fro m a n IJ’ s ad v e rs e c r e d ib ili ty d eterm ination , this discreti o n is w ell -plac e d

. C f. Jasc h v . P o tt er, 3 0 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 5 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (ex p lai n ing in th e T itle V II cont extthat“[w ] hen an agenc ypr ocee ds t o r eac h the mer i t s of the cas e r ath er than d i s m i s s the cl ai m . . . , i thas det erm i ned that s uffi ci ent inf

or m at i on exi s t s fors uch adj udi cat i on. A ft eral l , the agenc y it s el f i s i n a s tr ong pos i t i on t o eval uat e w hetherthe com plai nan t has s uff i ci entl y com pli ed w i th [th e a gen cy ’s ] re q u e s ts .” ). A s C o n g re ss h a s e m p o w e re d a g e n c ies to c a rry o u t th e ir del egat ed func t i ons , the admi ni s tr at i ve s y s t em contem pl at es that “a g en cies ‘sh o u ld b e f

ree to f ash ion their ow n rules o f p ro c e d u re a n d to p u rsu e m e th o d s o f in q u iryc a p a b le o f

p e r m it ti n g th e m to di s char ge t hei r m ul t i tudi nous dut i es . ’ ” S i dabut ar , 503 F. 3d at1120 (qu o ti n g F C C v . P o tt sv il le B roa d

. C o . , 3 0 9 U

. S

. 1 3 4 , 1 4 3 (19 4 0 )). G iv e n th is d e leg a tio n to a c o o rd in a te b ra n c h , “o u r ro le is n o t to s ubs t i tut e ourow n pr efer ence forthe opt i m al admi ni s tr at i ve p ro c e d u re f

o r t h e a g e n c y ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f its in te rn a l ru le s . . . . Ig n o rin g th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f th e se iss u e s w o u ld a m o u n t to a ju d icia l d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e B o a rd a c ted u lt r a v ire s in fo ll o w ing it s o w n rules.” S idab u tar, 5 0 3 F

. 3 d at 1 1 2 0 ; see M cK art v. U ni t ed St at es , 395 U

. S. 185, 194 ( 1969)

. I ti s w el l

- es t abl i s hed that ag en cies m ayw ai ve compl i ance w i th thei r“pr ocedur al rul es a d o p te d f

o r t h e o rd e rl ytr a n s a c tio n o f [ a g e n c y ] b u s in e s s . . . .” C o lo. E n v tl

. C o al. v . W en k e r, 3 5 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 8 (10 th C ir

. 20 04) ( qu ot i ng A m. Fa r m L i ne s v. Bl a c k Bal l Fr e i gh t , 39 7 U. S. 532, 538- 39 ( 1970) ) ; s ee W ei nber gerv. Sal fi , 422 U

. S. 749, 766- 67 (1 9 7 5 ). A s th e B IA w a iv e d c o m p lian c e w ith its sp e c if icity r e q u i r e me n tb yc h o o s i n g t o a d d r e s s Bi n ’ s p e t i t i o n o n th e me r i t s , we m aynotnow r ej ect the pet i t i on forr evi ew bas ed on that requi r ement
. See A ngel us M i l l i ng C o. v. C om m ’ rof I nt ernal R evenue , 325 U

. S. 293, 297 ( 1945) ( “I f the C om m i s s i onerchoos es n o t to sta n d o n h is o w n f o rm a l o r d e taile d re q u ire m e n ts, it w o u ld be maki ng an empt y abs tr act i on, and not a pr act i cal s afe guar d, of a r egul at i on t o al l ow the C om m i s s i oner t o i nvoke t echni cal obj ect i ons aft erhe has i nves t i gat ed the mer i t s of a c l ai m and t aken17 act i on upon i t ”) ; A bdel qadarv. G onzal es , 413 F

. 3d 668, 670- 71 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( “The agenc y ’ s as s ert i on . . . thatfai l ur e t o pr es erve an is sue dep ri ves us of

subject -m at t er j uri sdi ct i on , so t hat w e m ust i gnor e the age ncy ’ s ow n for fei tur e, l acks anyvi s i bl e mea ns of s uppor t
. ”) ; N at ’ l L abor R el at i ons B d. v. M ons ant o C hem. C o. , 205 F .2 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 4 (8 th C ir . 1 9 5 3 ). H ol di ng thatthe B I A w ai ved i t s s peci fi ci tyr equi r ement does notrun count ert o the purpos es under l y i ng the exha us t i on d o c trin e . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t “[ e ] x h a u stio n is gener al l yr equi r ed as a m att er of pr event i ng pr ematur e i nt er fer ence w ith a g e n c yp ro c e s se s, . . . [g iv in g th e a g e n c y ] a n o p p o rtu n ityto corr ecti t s ow n err or s , t o aff or d the part i es and t h e court s the b en ef ito f it s ex p erien ce an d ex p erti se, an d to co m p ile a re co rd w hi ch i s adequa t e forj udi ci al r evi ew . ” Sal fi , 422 U

. S

. at 765. W hi l e thes e ar e i m por t antconce rns , “[w ] her e t h e B I A has i s s ued a decis i on con si deri ng the m eri t s o f an i ssue, even sua spon t e, these i nt e r e s t s h a v e b e e n f

u l f i l l e d

. ” Si d a b u t a r , 5 0 3 F. 3 d a t 1 1 21. T he B I A h a s a l r e a d y h a d a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o a p p l y i t s e x p e r i ence and expert i s e w i thoutj udi ci al i nt er fer ence . So t oo, the f ac tthatthe B I A has addr es s ed the i s s ue i ndepende nt l yfr om the I J ens ur es that the re co rd is ad eq u ate f o r ou r rev iew

. Ind ee d , the S idab u tar co u rt expr es s l y l i m i t ed t he appl i cat i on of t hi s rul e t o cas es i n w hi ch the B I A “i s s ues a ful l expl anat ory opi ni on or a di s cerni bl e s ubs t ant i ve d is c u s s io n o n th e m e ri ts o v e r m a tte rs n o t p re s e n te d b yth e a lie n ,” d isting u ishing ca ses w h ere “the B IA su m m aril yaf firm s the IJ deci s i on in to to w i thoutfur theranal y s i s of the i s s ue. ” Id. at1122 (c itin g 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 4 ))

. W h ile w e n e e d n o t sp e c if y th e p re c ise lim itatio n s o f th is ru le her e, w e not e that the B I A di d i s s ue a “ di s cerni bl e s ubs t ant i ve di s cus s i on on the mer i t s ” i n thi s cas e. See i d. R ather than i s s ui ng a o n e-m em b er str ea m li n ed o p inion u n d er 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 1 (e)(4), th e B IA c o n sid e re d B in ’s c a se a s a th re e -m e m b e r p a n e l. Itc ited to M att er o f B u rba n o , 2 0 I. & N

. D ec . 8 7 2 , 8 7 4 (B IA 1 9 9 4 ), i ndi cat i ng thati thad conduc t ed an i ndep en d entr evi ew of the re c o r d a n d h a d e x e rc ise d its o w n d isc re tio n in d e ter m in in g its agr eementw i th t he r eas oni ng and r es ul tof the I J

. See Par i povi c v. G onzal es , 418 F. 3d 240, 243 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; A rr egui n- M or eno, 5 1 1 F

. 3 d at 12 3 2

. In e x erc isi n g it s ind ep en d en t discreti o n , the B IA18 m a d e c lea r th a t it a g re e d o n ly w ith th e IJ’ s ad v e rs e c r e d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, and notnece s s ar i l yw i th the I J ’ s con clus i ons r egar di ng the r el evants t anda r ds forr el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , exer ci s i ng ju risd ictio n o v e r B in ’s p e tit io n f o r re v iew w o u ld n o t p re m a tu re ly i nt er fer e w i th the agency pr oces s es . T he age ncyher e had s uffi ci ent oppor tuni tyt o corr ecti t s ow n err or s and appl y i t s expert i s e t o the m a tter a t h a n d . S e e S a g e rm a rk v . I.N .S ., 7 6 7 F .2 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 (9 th C i r . 1985) ( “W hetherornotthe dec i s i on on the mer i t s w as t echni cal l ybefor e the B I A , th e BI A ad d r es s ed i tthor oughl yenough t o convi nce us thatthe r el evantpol i cyconce rns under l y i ng the e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t . . . h a v e b e e n s a tis f ie d h e re .” ). W h ile w e w o u ld u su a llyh o ld th a t a p e tit io n e r’s f a ilu re to pr es entan issue to the B I A cons t i tut ed a f ai l ur e t o exhaus t , thus d e p riv in g u s o f

ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r i t, h e re th e B IA su a sp o n te ad d resse d an d ruled o n the u n raised issue

. In s o d o in g the B IA w aive d , as it w as en ti tl ed to d o , it s sp ec ifi cityreq u ir em en t un d er 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .3 (b ). B e c a u se th e B IA w a iv e d its sp e c if icity r equi r ementand addr es s ed the I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on on the m e rits , th e re b ye x h a u stin g th e iss u e , w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to cons i derthe pet i t i on for r evi ew . See Si dabut ar , 503 F. 3d at1120. I V. W e no w add res s the m eri t s of B i n’s appeal. B in seeks a new cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, cl ai m i n g , am ong otherthi ngs , that the I J i ncorr ect l yi dent i fi ed tw o pu rport ed di s cr epanc i es betw een B in’s test im o n yan d h is w ri tt en af fid av it

. W e d isag ree w ith B in’s arg u m en ts an d h o ld tha t sub stan tial evid en ce su p p o rt s the IJ’s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he fi r s ti n consi s t encynot ed bythe I J w as a di s cr epanc y b etw ee n B in’s w rit ten a ff idav itan d h is t esti m o n yb ef o re the IJ c o n c e rn in g th e re a so n s g iv e n f o r h is a rre st in 1 9 9 9 . In h is aff i davi t , B i n s t at ed that “[a ] t the begi nni ng of A ugus tin 1 9 99[] f iv e o r si x p o lic e o f

f ic e rs s u d d e n ly s h o w e d u p a t m y h o m e . They s ai d thatI

pr act i ced Fal un G ong and bel i eve d the evi lr el igi on . T heyt old m e t hat I w as und er arres t
. I coul d n ot res i st
. A s a re su lt, I w a s ta k e n to th e p o li c e s tatio n .” A .R . 3 3 9 (e m p h a sis added)

. O n di r ectexami nat i on, how ever , B i n s t at ed— and then19 re p e a ted

— th a t h e w a s g iv e n n o re a so n f o r th e a rre st, e ith e r a t h is h o u se o r a t th e p o lice p re c in c t. W h e n g iv e n a n o p p o r tu n ityto expl ai n the contr adi ct i on, B i n m er el yr epl i ed that“[w ] el l , I for got s o me t i me e v e n wh a tI h a d wr i t t e n i n my s t a t e me n t
. ” A. R. 9 0

. He added: “I don’t h av e a good mem oryi n m ym i nd and s om et i m es I w o u ld m is s a f

e w s e n te n c e s th a t I h a v e w ri tte n in m ys ta te m e n t.” A

. R

. 90. B in ’s tes tim o n y sim p ly c a n n o t b e re c o n c iled w ith h is af f id a v it. W h il e B in’s af

fid av itstat ed that the a rresti n g o ff icers s ai d thatB i n pr act i ced Fal un G ong, B i n t es t i fi ed qui t e cl ear l ythat h e w a s n o t g iv e n a re a so n f o r h is a rre s t a n d th a t h e w a s s im p ly t aken t o t he pol i ce pr ecinc t byfor ce. G i ven B i n’ s di ffe r i ng pos i t i ons conce r ni ng t he ci r cumst ance s of h is arr es t , ther e w as re a s o n f o r t h e IJ to d o u b t B in ’s c re d ib ility. B i n’ s att empt t o expl ai n the contr adi ct i on onl yexac erbat ed thes e doubt s . I n s t at i ng thathe “f or gots om et i m e even w hat[he] had w ri t t en in [his ] s t at ement , ” B i n s eemed t o be t esti fy ing not fr om hi s i ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on of hi s purpor t ed ar r es t , butfr om hi s r ecol l ect i on of w hathe had w r i t t en i n the af fi davi the pr epar ed s peci fi cal l y t o appl y for as y l um . I n thi s r egar d, the i ncons i s t ency betw een Bi n’ s t es t i m ony and affi davi tcr eat ed the per cept i on that B i n m anu factured a st oryt o tel l t o the I J. T hi s di s cr epanc ygoes t o the hea r tof B i n’ s as y l um ap p li ca ti o n . S ee G ao v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 9 F

. 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). C o u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t “ a ttem p ts b yth e a p p lica n t to en h an ce h is cl aim s o f pe rsec u ti o n ” go to the h ea rto f a p eti ti o n er’s claim fo r reli ef

. S arr v . G o n za les, 4 8 5 F

. 3 d 3 5 4 , 3 6 0 (6th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); D am aize -Job v . I. N

. S

. , 7 8 7 F

. 2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 7 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ); s ee also i d. ( di ffe r ent i at i ng s uch bol s t er i ng att empt s fr om “mi nor d iscrep an cies in d ates tha t are attri b u table to th e a p p li ca n t’ s la nguage pr obl ems or typogr aphi cal err or s ”)

. I n thi s cas e, the IJ w as notconvi nced thatB i n w as arr es t ed atal l , l etal one forone of the s t atut or i l y - pr ot ect ed gr ounds nece s s aryt o be el i gi bl e for as y l um and w i thh o lding of r emoval

. T hus , a di s cr epanc y conce r ni ng the veryr eas on forB i n’ s arr es t , thaton the one ha nd w o u ld g iv e rise to a n a sy lu m c laim , o r o n th e o th e r h a n d w o u ld n o t,W e n o te th at th is i n co n sist en cy c o m es a m idst B in’s 9 o th e rw ise u n p e rsu a siv e a n d p e rh a p s ev a siv e tes tim o n y : w h ile B in cl ai m s to h av e bee n i nt err ogat ed atthe pol i ce pr eci nct , he w as unabl e t o rec al l w hatki nd of ques t i ons the C hi nes e author i t i es as ked of hi m ; w hi l e B i n s t at ed thathi s m otherw as i nt err ogat ed by pol i ce, B i n did n o tknow anythi ng thatw as as ked of he rorw hen the int err og at i on t oo k p l ace; w hil e he st at ed tha t the C hinese author i t i es pr epar ed a doc um entadmoni s hi ng hi m nott o pr act i ce F al un G on g again, B i n w as u nab l e t o rem em ber a nyof it s content s; w hi l e he w as br ought by hi s fami l y t o s ee a doct or , he di d nothave a n ym e d ica l proof co nc e rn in g h is s to m a c h c o n d iti o n ; an d w h ile B in s t at ed t hat he cam e t o t he U ni t ed St at es t o appl yforas y l um , w hen appr oache d byB or derPatr ol agent s he s t at ed thathe ca m e for e c o n o m ic re a s o n s . 20 goes t o t he hea r tof B i n’ s cl ai m forr el i ef. 9
T h e se c o n d in c o n sis ten c yre late s to th e m a n n e r in w h ich B in purpor t edl ypr act i ced Fal un G ong aft erbei ng r el eas ed fr om d e ten tio n in 1 9 9 9 a n d b e f o re h is s u b se q u e n t ar re st in 2 0 0 4 . B in s t at ed i n hi s af

fid avi tthat , on occa s i on, he i nvi t ed otherFal un G ong prac ti ti oner s t o hi s par ent s ’ hom e t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong t ogether

. B efor e the I J , how ever , B i n m ade c l earthataft er1999 he on l ypract i ced in hi s parent s’ hous e byhi m s el f. W hen as ked about th e d isc re p a n c y , B in e x p lain e d th a t “[ w ]e ll, I d id w r it e [ th a t I i nv i t ed o ther pract i t i on ers t o m y parent s’ ho use] i n m yst at em ent s o I pr es um e[d] that y o u k n ew abouti t , ” and f ur ther , thathe di d not u n d e rs ta n d th e q u e s tio n s a s k e d o f h im . A .R . 8 8 -8 9

. T h is in c o n sis ten c ya lso g o e s to th e h e a rt o f B in ’s c laim . B in cl ai m s thathe w as arr es t ed forpr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. I f he w as arr es t ed foranother r eas on, ornotarr es t ed atal l , thi s w oul d be fa t al t o hi s as y l um cl ai m . T hus , the l ocat i on w her e B i n pr act i ced Fal un G ong i s r el evanti n thati tbear s on how l i kel yi tw as that the C h in e se a u th o rities k n e w o f h is F a lu n G o n g a c tiv iti e s. If h e tru ly p rac ti ce d sec retl yan d alon e in h is ho m e, as he told th e IJ, i t i s h ard to b e li e v e th a t th e a u th o rities c o u ld h a v e f o u n d o u t ab o u t h is p rac ti ce o f F alun G o n g an d p erse cu ted him fo r th at reaso n . B in’s inco n sist en t t esti m o n y o n this c en tr al issu e is th u s m aterial to B in’s cl ai m forr el i ef.21 T h is discrep an cy is bu ttresse d b ythe IJ’s f ind ing as to B in’s demeanor

. W hen as ked how i t coul d be that , s i nce h e pra ct i ced s ecr et l y , the authori t i es came t o l earn he w as pr act i ci ng Fal un G ong i n 2004, B i n “s tut t er ed and w as unabl e t o pr ovi de a r at i onal expl anat i on . . . . ” A

. R

. 50. W e have not ed that “[a ] n i m m i gr at i on j udge alone i s i n a pos i t i on t o obs erve an a l i en’ s t one and d em ea n o r” a n d is “u n iqu elyq u ali fied to d ec ide w h ethe r an ali en ’s t es t i m onyhas abouti t the r i ng of truth. ” A bdul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at597; s ee D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249- 50 (3d C ir

. 2003) (e n b a n c ). G iven the in co n sist en cies relied o n b ythe IJ a n d B in’s unper s uas i ve dem ea n o r, w e appl yourdefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew and hol d thata r eason ab le adj udi cat orw oul d notbe compel l ed t o concl ude thatB i n w as cr edible. See A bdul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at599; s ee a l s o T arr aw al l y v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 187 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) (not i ng that “al tho ug h s om e m i no r d iscrepanc i es” betw een pe t i t i oner ’ s aff ida vi tand t es t i m ony“mi ghtbe u n d erstan d ab le, ” p eti ti o n er’s “irreco n cil ab le co n tr ad ict o ry asse rt ion s” sup p o rt ed the IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination ). T he IJ pr ov i ded “speci fi c[, ] cogen treas on s” formaki ng the a dv ers e c r e d i b i l i tyd e t e r mi n a t i o n , Di a , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d a t2 4 9

- 5 0 , a n d t h u s , we hol d thatthe det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence

. V

. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny the p et i t i on for re v ie w .