### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 14, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1433 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 97- 670- 212 LIFANG LIN, Petitioner,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 14 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T hr oughc ouns el , L if

an g L in p et iti ons fo r re vie wof the Bo ar d of Im m igr at ionAppe al s’ s ( BI A ) fi na l or de r af fi rming the I m

m igr at ionJud ge ’ s ( IJ ) de ci sio n de ny ing he r as y lum , w ithhol din g of r em ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ionand N at ion al ity

A ct ( IN A ), and r el ie f unde r the U nit ed N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t Tortur e an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um an , or Deg rad in g Tre at m en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (C AT). O n a ppe al , L in arg ue s th at

w e shou ld n ot d ef

er to the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rminatio n, w hic h w as the ba sis of the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at L in w as not el igi ble f or a sy lum , be ca

use it “ w as ba se d oninf

er en ce s and p re sum

pti ons not
re as ona bly gr ound ed

in the r ec or d. ” L in c la im s th at she sho uld

be gr an te d a sy lum be ca use she f ears pe rs ec uti on b as ed

on h er r el igi on, F al un G ong. S he c ont en ds that the IJ based the adverse cr edibilit y determ ination solely

on the incon sistencies th atex is te d i n h er t es ti m on y , herair po rt s ta te m en t, an d h er cr ed ib le fearin te rv ie w. W e re view the I J’ s decision in this case, not th e BI A’ s, beca use the BIA af fi rm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out an op ini on, the re by

m ak ing the I J’ s de ci sio n th e fi na l a ge nc y

de te rminatio n. S ee Me ndoz a v. U
. S. A tto rn ey . G en . , 327 F
. 3d 1 283, 1284 n. 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. A n I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n a lon e m ay be sufficient to supp ort the denial of an asy lum application. D -Muhum ed v. U .S
. Att y . Gen., 3 88 F.3d81 4, 8 19 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).3

I t i s th e duty

of the f ac t f ind er to de te rmine c re dib ili ty , and w e m ay not
subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th atof t he IJ wi th res pe ctto cred ib il it y fin di ng s. V as que z- Mon dr ag on v . I N S, 560 F
. 2d 1 225, 122 6 ( 5thCi r. 197 7)
. A n a dve rs e
cr ed ibi lity

de te rminatio n m

ust be uph el d un le ss “ any

r ea sona ble a dj udi cator

w oul d be c om pe lle d to c onc lud e to the c ontrary . ” G ao v. A shc ro ft , 299 F
. 3d 2 66, 272 (3 rd Ci r. 200 2) ( quot ing 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52( b) (4 )( B) ). O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity fi ndi ng i s m ad e, the appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of sho w ing that the I J’ s c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not

sup porte d by

spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons or w as not ba se d on subs tanti al e vid en ce . F or gue v. U
. S. A tto rn ey G en er al , 401 F
. 3d 1 282, 128 7 ( 11th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e re adily

conclude that the IJ’ s credibility decision in th is case w as supp orte d by

spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons and w as ba se d onsub stanti al e vid en ce . T he IJ noted several serious incons istencies in Lin’ s various statem ents. T he IJ stated th atLin ha d “ subm it te d n o e vi de nc e th atsh e is a Fal un Gon g o th er t ha n h er o wn testim ony and a statem ent from

her pare nts in Chin a. ” T he IJ further noted that L in’ s st or y w ar rante d sk ep tic ism

be ca use she c la im ed

she w as F al un G ong fo r le ss than am onth, c oul d no t a de quate ly e xpl ai n wha t F al un G ong w as , and w as notW e d ec l i n e to address L in’s challeng e to the I J ’s alter native findingthat the 1 mistreatment that she suff ere d did not rise to the l evel of perse cution beca use we find that substantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination. W e find L in’s other c halleng e, that the I J denied her due proce ss rig hts, to be wholly without merit.

4 re al ly de ta ile d a s to w ha t sh e did to pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong. W e fi nd tha t the se
re as ons pr ovi de sub stanti al e vid en ce f or the I J” s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n. 1 Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d onappe al and u pon co nsi de ratio n of

the part ie s’ br ie fs , we di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r. PETI TI ON DENI ED.