F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 24, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 07- 1069 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ BI AN o. A 79- 458- 032 FENGE YANG , Petitioner, v e r s u s U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, 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 24 , 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pet it io ne r is a na ti ve an d c it iz en of t he Peo pl e’s Rep ub li c o f Ch in a. OnOn J anuar y 16, 2004, the I J g rante d Petitioner’s motion to wit hdrawher a pplication – 1 so to allow Petiti oner to obtain doc umentation to support her a sylum request. On Ma y 7, 2004, the I J g ra nte d Pe tit ion e r’ s mo tio n to re op e n th e a sylum he ari ng . Se e Am ay a -Art un du a g a v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2003). In addition to seekingasylum, she sought withholding of r emoval and r elief unde r the U.N . Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . 2 May 28, 2002, she left China for Ve nezuela. From there, she flewto the United St at es , arr ivi ng at M iam i I nte rn at ion al A ir port onJul y

10, 200 2. S he e nte re d th e U nit ed S ta te s w ithaJa

pane se pa ssp ort be ar ing af al se nam e, and s ta te d th at she was a Vis a Waive r Pi lo t Pr og ram ap pl ic an t. Pet it io ne r al so so ug htasylu m . H av ing r eque ste d a sy lum , she w as take n be fo re an a sy lum of fi ce r. S he tol d th e of fi ce r that sh e le ft

Ch ina to es ca pe Ch ina ’ s f

am ily planni ng p oli cy . S ix m onths la te r, P et iti one r fi lle d ou t a f orm al appl ic at ionf

or a sy lum . I n th e ap pli catio n, she st at edth atsh e le ft C hi nabe cau se sh e fea redpe rs ecu ti on forbe in g aCh ris ti an . Sh e state d th at

he r im m ed iate f am ily – he r husb an d, tw o c hil dr en , f athe r an d e igh t siblin gs – resided in Chin a, that she left China because the Chinese autho rities had persecuted her on acc ountof her C hristian faith, and that if sent back to China, th ey wou ldim

pr is on he r du e to he r act iv it ie s wi th in th e ch ur ch . An Im m igration Ju dge (“ IJ”) heard Petitioner’ s asy lum application on May 17, 2005. A fter c onsid ering Petitioner’ s testim ony and her docum entary 1 ev ide nc e, he de nie d th e ap pli catio n – f ind ing that P et iti one r’ s te sti m ony w as not cr ed ibl e – and o rd er ed

he r re m ova l, r ej ec tin g he r re que st f or w ith hol din g of3

rem ov al an d C AT reli ef. In her testim ony

before the I J, P etitioner said that her two children w ere liv ing w ithhe r sis te r in C hin a an d th at she ha d be enli vin g w ithhe r husb an d in N ewY ork C ity

– tha t he ha d be enr es idi ng the re sin ce 199 5. ( H is i m m igr at ion status was in litigatio n.) When the IJ point ed out that sh e had ear lier stated under oa th tha t he r husb an d w as in Ch ina , she r es pond ed that sh e de ci de d to be tr

uth fu l about her husb and before the hear ing conv ened. T he IJ w as concerned about her inc onsi ste nt s tate m en ts a bout w he n sh e be cam e a Ch ri sti an . I n th e state m en t appended to h er a

pplication , she said that she becam e a C hristian in 1 995; in her testim ony before the I J, she said that she wa s raised a Chr istian. T hen there w as the dis cr ep an cy

r eg ar din g why

she le ft Ch ina . Whe n qu es tio ne d onhe r ar ri va l i n Miam i, P etitioner said she fled China because of its fam ily plannin g poli cy ; in her as y lum appl ic at ionand s ubse que nt t es tim ony be fo re the I J, she sa id tha t he r fl igh t w as due to he r re lig ion . Pe tit ion er appe al ed the I J’ s de ci sio n to the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s (“BI A” ). In h erb ri ef

t o th e B IA , s h e c h al l en g ed , a m o n g o th erth i n g s , t h e I J ’s finding that she lacked cre dibil ity . She also contended that th e IJ had denied her du e p ro ces s o f la w by rel y in g o n t ha t fi nd in g t o d en y he r as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n.In aff irming the I J ’s dec ision, the BIA disagree d with the I J ’s findingthat Petitioner’s 2 asylum application was fr ivolous. W hether it was frivolous is not an issue in this review. As noted above , in denying Petitioner’ s application for asylum and withholding of 3 remova l, the I J denied Petitioner CAT re lief. Petitioner did not challeng e the de nial of CAT pr ote c tio n in

he r b ri e f t o th e B IA. B e c a us e sh e did

no t do so – a

nd thu s f a ile d f ull y to e xha us t her a dminist rative r emedies a s to that matter – we do not c onsider it in this appeal and the ref ore dismiss her pe tition t o the extent that it s eeks CAT pr otection. Where, a s here , the B IA adopts the I J ’s dec ision and agree s with the I J ’s findingthat 4 the applica

nt’s testimony

was not cr edible, we revie w the I J ’s finding . Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1284. 4 T he BI Aw as not

pe rs ua de d and a ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n. 2 Pe tit ion er nowpe tit ion s th is c ourt f or r ev ie w . T he que sti on w e m ust de ci de is whe the r subs tanti al e vid en ce sup ports the de nia l of he r ap pli catio n f

or a sy lum an d w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. S ee A l N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 4 3 (11th Cir. 2001) (af

firm ing th e BI A’ s decision if it is “ supp orted by rea sonable, subs tantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.”) 4

“ [A ] n adverse cre dibil ity determ ination alone m ay be sufficient to suppo rt the de nia l of

an a sy lum

appl ic at ion . ” F or gue v. U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 1287 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . I n th is c as e, the I J po int ed to se ve ra l m at er ia l inc onsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n P et iti one r’ s te sti m ony be fo re the I J and h er

pr ev iou s state m en ts. T he BI Anot ed the se inc onsi ste nc ie s, “ in p ar tic ular . . . the c onf

lic t i n the applicant’ s claim

concerning the where abouts o f her husband.” T he BIA fo un d t ha t t hi s [wa s] si gn ifi can t. . . . Se e e.g ., mat te r o f A-E-— , 21 I &ND ec . 115 75

(BIA1998 ). T he [IJ] also cited other signi ficant inconsisten cies including her or igi na l a sse rt ionto the D ep ar tm en t of H om el an d S ec ur ity

. . . of fi ci al s th at

she fe ar ed pe rs ec uti on d

ue to vio latio n of

f amily planni ng p oli ci es w hil e at he r he ar ing she claim ed fear of per secution because she was a C hristian.” W e cannot fault the IJ for rej ecting Petitioner’ s testim ony regar ding her gr ound s f or a sy lum be ca use he r te sti m ony

w as not c re dib le . W e thu s a ff

irm the de nia l of P et iti one r’ s a sy lum

appl ic at ion . Be ca use P et iti one r fa ile d to e sta bli sh tha t sh e w as qua lif

ie d f or a sy lum , she ne ce ssari ly

f ai le d to c ar

ry the he av ie r bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng e nti tle m en t t o wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Al Najjar, 2 57 F.3dat 1 28 3- 84 . PETITION DISMIS SED, in pa rt, a ndDENIED, in pa rt.