I M G - 308 NOT P 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. 09- 4558

___________ YAR OS L AV B ODNAR UK, 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 099- 605- 141) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober6, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober20, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Y ar os l av B odnaruk, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of U kr ai ne, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . Forthe r eas ons that2

fol l ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I . B odnaruk ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2001 and w as ul t i m at el ypl ace d i n r emoval p ro c e e d in g s f

o r h a v in g e n ter e d th e c o u n tryw ith o u t in sp e c tio n . H e c o n c e d e d h is r emovabi l i tyand, i n 2007, appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . I n s upportof hi s appl i cat i on, he ar gued thathe had bee n per s ecut ed i n U kr ai ne on ac countof hi s B apt i s tfai th. I n J anuary2008, aft era hea r i ng on the mer i t s , the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed B odnaruk’ s appl i cat i on. Fi r s t , the I J concl uded thatB odnaruk’ s as y l um cl ai m w as u n tim e ly. T h e IJ th e n tu rn e d to B o d n a ru k ’s re q u e s t f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. A l though notques t i oni ng B odnaruk’ s fai th as a B apt i s t , the I J found thatthe r es tof B odnaruk’ s t es t i m onyw as notcr edi bl e, and thatther e w as “pr act i cal l yno d o cu m en tat ion ” o f a n yo f th e a ll eg ed instan ce s o f p ast p erse cu ti o n . (A d m in. R ec . at 24 . ) T he I J furtherconcl uded thatB odnaruk had nototherw i s e es t abl i s hed thathe w oul d be per s ecut ed i f r emoved t o U kr ai ne. A s a r es ul t , the I J deni ed B odnaruk’ s r eques tfor w i thhol di ng of r emoval . T he I J al s o hel d thatB odnaruk had notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i tyfor C A T r el i ef. O n appea l , the B I A agr eed w i th the I J thatB odnaruk’ s as y l um cl ai m w as t i m ebarr ed. T he B I A al s o uphel d the I J ’ s deni al of w i thhol di ng of r emoval . I n doi ng s o, the B I A aff i rm ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, not ed thatB odnaruk had “f ai l edW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r B o d n a ru k ’s p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 1 ). 1 B o d n aru k h as w aive d h is r igh t t o ch all en g e a n yo ther a sp ec t of the a g en cy ’s 2 d ec isi o n . S ee L ab o rers’ Int’l U n ion v . F o ster W h ee ler C o rp., 2 6 F . 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir . 19 94 ) ( “A n is sue i s w ai ved un l ess a partyrai ses i ti n it s open i ng bri ef, and for tho se p u rp o se s a p a ss in g re f

e re n c e to a n iss u e w ill n o t su f f ice to b rin g th a t issu e b e f o re th is court . ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though B odnaruk does not chal l enge the deni al of hi s as y l um cl ai m as unt i m el y , w e not e that , even i f he ha d done s o, w e w o u ld lac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew th a t d e n ial. S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ); T a rra w a lly v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 3 t o adequa t el ycorr obor at e hi s cl ai m , ” and c oncl uded that“gi ven the t es t i m onyof the expertw i tnes s and the bac kgr ound m at er i al i n the r ecor d, i ncl udi ng the St at e D epartm ent re p o rts, w e a g re e w ith th e [ IJ’ s] c o n c lu sio n th a t [ B o d n a ru k ] h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t h is l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i f he i s r emoved t o U kr ai ne. ” ( I d. at4. ) Fi nal l y , the B I A uphel d the I J ’ s deni al of B odnaruk’ s C A T cl ai m . B odnaruk now s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s deci s i on. 1 II. T h e sc o p e o f

o u r re v iew in th is c a se is ra th e r n a rro w , as B o d n a ru k c h a llen g e s o n ly the age ncy ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and i t s fi ndi ng thathe fa i l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entcorr obor at i ng evi dence . W e r evi ew thes e fi ndi ngs fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , s ee 2 B ut tv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , and mustuphol d them “unl es s the e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it.” A b d ill e v . A sh c ro f t, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 3 -84 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). B odnaruk fi r s tar gues thatthe age ncyerr ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derhi s expl anat i ons f o r t w o o f th e in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n h is a p p lic a tio n a n d h is te s tim o n y . W e d is a g re e .4

H is a ttem p t to re c o n c ile o n e o f th e se in c o n sis ten c ies w a s m a d e f o r th e f irst tim e in h is br i ef, and thus w as nota partof the r ecor d befor e the age ncy . T he otheri ncons i s t ency c o n c e rn e d w h e th e r h e h a d s u f f e re d a b ro k e n h a n d d u ri n g a n a lle g e d b e a tin g in 2 0 0 0 . W hi l e hi s appl i cat i on cl ai m ed that“nothi ng w as fr actur ed” dur i ng the bea t i ng, ( s ee A dm i n. R ec. at556) , he t es t i fi ed thathi s hand w as br oken dur i ng the bea t i ng. ( See i d. at 147. ) W hen the G overnm entl at erhi ghl i ght ed thi s di s cr epanc yon cr os s - exami nat i on, B o d n a ru k re tre a ted f

ro m h is e a rliertes tim o n y . S p e c if ica lly , h e tes tifie d th a t itw a s h is “gu ess” that hi s hand had been broken and that hi s appli cat i on st at ed o therw i se becau se th e c lin ic th a t h a d tre a ted h im h a d n o t tak e n X -ra y s o f h is h a n d . (S e e id . at 1 5 1 .) T h is l att ert es t i m onydoes l i t t l e t o r econc i l e the di s cr epanc ybetw een hi s appl i cat i on and o rig in a l tes tim o n y . W e a re c o n f id e n t th a t, rath e r th a n ig n o rin g B o d n a ru k ’s a ttem p t to r econc i l e thi s di s cr epanc y , the age ncys i m pl yfound hi s expl anat i on unper s uas i ve, and B o d n a ru k h a s n o t o th e rw ise sh o w n th a t th e re c o rd c o m p e ls a f a v o ra b le c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng. B odnaruk’ s otherar gum enti s that“the corr obor at i on demanded bythe age ncyw as u n rea so n ab le. ” A g ain, w e d isag ree . G iven the d iscrep an cies b etw ee n B o d n aru k ’s appl i cat i on and t es t i m ony , and the I J ’ s r es ul t antadver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, i tw as n o t u n re a so n a b le f

o r th e IJ to se e k so m e f o rm o f c o rro b o ra tio n . A lth o u g h B o d n a ru k d id s ubm i ts om e document at i on i n s upportof hi s appl i cat i on, he does notar gue, l etal one e sta b lish , tha t th is e v id e n c e c o m p e ls a f in d in g th a t h e w o u ld lik e lyb e p e rse c u ted if5

r emoved t o U kr ai ne. I n l i g h to f

th e a b o v e , we wi l l d e n yBo d n a ru k ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.