The Honor able T her es a L. Spr i ngm ann, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or  the U nit ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court, N orther n D is tr ic t ofIndiana, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2156 N AT AS HA R A MA, etal. , P etitio ners , v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

On Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App ealsA gency. No s. A 077-650- 672, 671, 673

A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 28, 2010

B efor e K ANN E a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd S PR I NGMA NN, D istrict Judge.  S PR I NGMA NN, D istrict Judge. I n Feb ruar y o f20 00, A lban i a n n a t i v e s Na t a s h a R a ma , F e r r i c kR a ma , a n d L e d i a R a ma2 N o. 09

- 2156

On M ar c h 1 , 20 03 , the I N S c ea s ed t o e xi s tas ani ndepe nden t 1 agency withi n the Depar t m en tofJ us t i c e and i t s func t i ons w ere tr ansferr ed to the newly f orm ed D epartm ent ofH om el and S ec ur i t y. att em pted to enterthe U ni ted S tat es w ithout val i d passport s and s ubsequentl y appli ed f or asy l um . On Ju ly 13, 2004, an I m m i gr ati on Ju dge ( IJ ) deni ed thei r re quest and or dered thattheybe re m ove d. The Board o fI m m i gr at i o n A p p e a l s ( B I A) a ffi r me d w i th o u to p i n i o n o n D e c e mber7, 20 05. Thi s peti ti on f ol l owed

. Fo r the r eas ons set f or th i n the f ol low in g opi ni on, we deny the peti ti on f o rr e v i e w.

I . B a c kg r o und On February1, 20 00, the Peti ti oner s were sto pp ed w i th fake pa ssp orts at C hicag o O’ H a r e Int erna tional A irport by offi cer s o fthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zati on Services (I N S). Fer ri ck and N atas ha were i nter vie w ed 1 separ ate l y b y the o ffi cer s. I n N atas ha’ s inter vi ew , she ad m itt ed usi ng a fra ud ule ntl y- obt ai ned p ass portthathad bee n i ssued to an o th err es i den t o fhe rna ti ve c i ty
. S he c l ai m ed th ats he and her f am i l y had t ra vel ed to the U n ite d S tates because F e r r i c kh a d b e e n i nv o l v e d in a car acc i de nta nd o we d a la rge sum of m one y to the ow ne r ofthe d am aged car. W he n the f ami l y was unabl e to p ay the s um o wed, the o wnerr an sa ck ed th e f ami l y ’ s ho us e an d p ou r ed sc al di ng m i l ko n n ine-ye ar - o l d Le di a’ s l eg s, pe r m an en tly s ca r r i ngN o. 09

- 2156 3 th em. Nat as ha c l ai m ed th at “[ sh e] fea r [ s] f o r [ he r ] husba nd and [he r] daughter[ i ftheywere f or ced to r etur n to A lbania] becau se th e m an w ho th r e a t en ed [ he r] hu sba nd ’s l i fe work s forthe A lbani an go ve rn m en t. ” Ad m i n. R. 64 7. W he n the o ffi ce ra sked Nat as ha ho w she kne w tha t th e perso n w ho threa tened herhusband and ransa cked her ho us e wo r k s f o rthe Alb a ni a n g o v e r nme nt, s he r e pl i e d, “I don’t know. I j ust ass um ed because he has a ni ce c ar . ” Id. F er r i ckwas i nt er vi ewe d b y a n a sy l um o ffi ce ro n the f ol l owing day. Du rin g hi s inter vi ew , Fe rr i ck adm i tte d that he had purchased fr au dul en t pas spo r ts f o rhi m self, h i s wi fe , a n d hi s d a u g h t e rf o rt e n th o u s a n d d o l l a r s . He c laim ed th at h e c am e t o th e U n ite d S t at es be c au se , foll o wi nga n a ut o mob i l e a c c i de nti n whi c h he wa s i nv o l v e d, th e o wn e ro fth e d a ma g e d c a rh a d c o me t o h i s h o me d em an d ing m one y, an d threw hot m ilkon his d au gh ter. H e s tat ed that he fear ed f orhi s l i fe. A fter these inte rview s, th e asylum officers de termi ne d that the R a mas h a d n o te s t ab l i s he d prim a facie eli gibil ity for asylum and referr e d t he ir case s for a hear ing be f or e a n IJ
. The I N S com m enced r em ova lpro ceedi ngs a gainst the Ram as on F ebr uary17, 20 00, by fi l i ng N ot ice s to A pp ear( N TA s) char gi ng the m ( 1 ) u n d e rth e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o na l i ty Ac t( I NA) § 21 2( a) ( 6) ( C) ( I ) , 8 U. S
. C. § 1 18 2( a) ( 6) ( C) ( I ) , a s al i en s w ho, b y fr aud or w i l l fully r epres enti ng a m ate ri alf act, soughtto pro cure a visa, o therdocum entat i on, o r adm i ssi on into the U ni ted S tat es orbene fi t pr ovi ded under t he I NA , a n d ( 2 ) u n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) , 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , as im m i gr ants w ho a t the ti m e o f4 N o. 09

- 2156 ap p lica tio n for a d m iss ion w er e n otin p os se ss ion of va lid un e xp i r e d i mm i g r a t i o n v i s a s , r e e nt r y p e r mi t s , b or der cro ssing ca rds, o r othe r val i d entr y docum ents as re quir ed by the I N A , and a v al id u nexpir ed passpor t, o r othe r sui tabl e t ra ve l d ocum ent, o r othe r docum ent o f i denti ty and nati onal i ty re quir ed und erthe re gul ati ons. Befo re the IJ, the Ram as conceded the c h ar ge that they w er e in ad m iss ible be c au se th ey d id n otp o s s e ss va lid passpor ts or vi sas at the ti m e of adm i ssi on. On J anuary31 , 2001 , N atas h a fi l ed w i th the IJ herappli cati on f or asy l um , with h old i ng o fr em ova l, and prot ecti on under th e U nited N ations C onv en tion A gains t T ortu re (CA T ), w i th Fe rr i ck and Led i a a s der i vati ves. I n h e ra s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n, Na t a s h a a d d e d n u me r o us facts to th ose sh e gave to th e I N S offi cia ls a t O ’H are ai r po r t. S he no w cl ai m ed th e fol l o wi ng : s he was s ee k i ng as ylu m be c au se of in c id en ts s h e e x p er ien c ed in A lba n ia th a twe r e a r e s u l to fF e r r i c k ’ s p o l i t i c a la c t i v i t i e s . S he st at ed th atF er r i ckha d b ec o m e the C ounc i lChi efo fthe Dem ocr ati c Par ty f orthe vi l l age of Zharr es i n 1992
. In 1997, w hen the So ci alis t Par ty too k power i n A lbani a, Fe rr i ck r ec ei ve d a l et te rfr o m the po l i ce t o pr es en t hi m se l fa t th e pol i ce s tat i on. Kn owing that tw o othe r Dem ocr ati c Party m em ber s had alrea dy bee n ar re ste d, Fer ri ck chose to go i nto hi ding ra therthan re port
. I n De c e mbe r1 9 9 9 , F e r r i c kc o l l i de d h i s a ut o mob i l e wi th anothe r autom obi l e co ntai ni ng two m en. Fe rr i ck i denti fi ed one ofthe passenge rs as a for m er cla ssm ate and an Albani an pol i ce o ffi cer . The two m en hi t F er ri ck a nd poi nted thei r gu n s at hi m . They then dem anded thathe payN o. 09

- 2156 5 th em $30, 00 0, o rr i skb einga r r es te d. F i ve da y s l at er, f o ur ma s k e d me n c a me t o Na t a s h a ’ s h o me , s e a r c h e d th e h o me f orFe rr i ck, a n d thr eat ened to ki l lthe f am i l y i fthey co ul d no t l o ca te F er r i ck

. Af te rtha t i nc i den t, Nat as ha and her daughter m ove d to N atas ha’ s par ents’ house

. F o urda y s afte rmo ving inwi thhe rpa r en ts , f o ur m as k ed m enc ame to thatho us e, b l i ndf o l ded an d hand cuffed N atas ha a n d Led i a, and drov e them to a n o th e r h o u s e . Du r i n g th e i r th r e e d a y s i n c a p t i v i t y, t he m en rap ed N at as h a re p ea te d ly, an d th re a t e n ed to kill her and Led i a i fshe did not re vealFe rr i ck’ s whereab outs. On the thi rd day, one of the m en threw hot m i l k on Ledia

. T h e m en th en d ro ve N at as h a a n d L ed ia t o th e h os p ita l, w h er e N at as h a s ta ye d for th re e d ay s a n d L ed ia re m ai ned f ortwo w eek s. At the M er i ts H ea r i ngbefo r e the IJ, Fe r r i cka nd Nat as ha gave testim ony that l argely conform ed to N atas ha ’s as ylu m ap p lica tio n . A lso te st ify in g w as P ro fes so r B er n ie F i sh er, who t es ti fi ed to the po o rr el ati ons hi p b etwee n the A lbani an Soci al i st and D em ocr ati c Par ti es, the So ci al i st P a r t y ’ s u s e o fi n t i mi d a t i o n t a c t i c s , a n d th e s t i g ma at ta c h ed to rap e in A lba n ia, w h ich h e s aid c o u ld ex p lain N atas ha’ s f ai l ure to m enti on the r ape i n heri n te rvi ew w i th I N S offi ci al s. On J ul y 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , the IJ i s s ue d a wr i t t e n o pi ni on fi nd ing th e Ra m as r emov ab l e as c ha r g ed an d de ny i ng th ei ra ppl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um , wi thho l di ng o f r emov al, a nd pr o te c t i o n u n d e rC AT
. In a th o r o u g h o p i n i o n th a tc o ntained a detai l ed re ci tat i on o fthe f acts , t h e IJ m ade an advers e cr edib ili ty deter m i nati on ba sed o n i nconsi s-6 N o. 09

- 2156 tenci es between the Ram as’ state m ents at O’H ar e Air port, an d the cl ai m s m ade i n N atas ha’ s a syl um appli cati on and the t est i m ony bef or e the IJ
. N otabl y, the IJ found that du ring the ai rpor t inter vi ew s, t he Ram as did notdi scl ose any deta i l s r ega rdi ng N atas ha’ s r ape, Fe rr i ck’ s pol i ti cal i nvol vem ent in the Dem ocr ati c Par ty, the noti ce F er ri ck ha d r ec ei ve d o rd ering hi m t o r epo r t to the po l i ce s ta ti o n, F er r i ck ’ s g o i ngi nt o hi di ng, o rthe k i dna p ing o fNat as ha and Led i a. The IJ f ound that th er e w as goo d excuse for the no n -d isc l osur e o fthe ra pe, but note d that “ the o m i ssions ext en d wel lb ey o nd the mul ti pl e r ape s to the v er y hear t o f[ the Ram as’ ] cl ai m : [ Fer ri ck’s] Dem ocr ati c Par ty i nvol vem ent. ” Ad m i n. R. 17 9. Otheri nconsi ste nci es ci ted by th e IJ includ ed i nc ons istenc ies be t w een N atas ha ’s te st im on y a b ou t h er h os p ita liza tio n an d a m ed ica l ce rt ificate fro m t h e h ospita lthatdi d not m enti on a ny i nj uri es consi ste nt with ra pe. Final l y, the IJ found per suasi ve Fe rric k’s failu re to su b m it e vid en c e t o c or ro b or at e h is c laim e d le ad er sh ip in t h e D em oc ra tic P ar ty . W h ile Fer ri ck did subm i t a l ett er co nfi rm i ng hi s m em be rs hip in th e p ar t y , t h e le tt er m ad e n o m en tio n of a lea d er sh ip posi ti on. Concl ud i ng, the IJ stat ed that “[ the Ram as] ha ve f ai l ed to meetthe i rb ur denof pr o o fi n e st ab l i sh i ng el i gibi l i ty f oras yl um . . . speci fi cal l y, theyfail ed to cre dibl y e stabl i sh thattheysuffer ed past pe rs ecuti on orhave a w el l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on. ” Ad m i n. R. at 1 8 2

- 8 3
. OnAugus t9 , 2 0 0 4 , the R a mas t i mel y a pp e a l ed th e IJ ’ s dec i si o n t o the BI A. On Dec embe r7, 2 00 5, the BIA sum m ar i l y affi rm ed w i thout opi ni on the IJ ’ s fi nd i ngs.N o. 09

- 2156 7 II . A n alysis A . Standard o fRevie w Because the BI A su m m ar i l y a ffi rm ed the IJ ’ s deci si on w i thout opi ni on, we base o ur r evi ew o n the IJ ’ s a nal ysi s. See Ha naj v. G o nz a les , 4 4 6 F
. 3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. We r ev i ew the IJ ’ s den i alo fNat as ha ’ s pet i ti o n f o ra sy l um a nd w i thhol ding ofr em ova lunder the hig h l y defer enti al su b st an tia l ev id e n c e te st
. SeeEm em e v. A shcroft, 35 8 F
. 3d 446 , 4 5 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )
. Pu r s ua nt t o thi s t e s t, we m ust upho l d th e IJ ’ s fi n d i n g s i fth e y a r e s u p p o r t e d b y r e a so nable, su bsta nt ial, an d p robative evi d en ce on th e re c ord consi dered as a w hol e; we m ay re ver se the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati on s on ly i fwe deter m i ne thatthe evi dence co m pel s a d iffer en t re su lt. Id. at 45 1; s e e also 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B) ( “[ T]he adm i ni str ati ve fi nd i ngs o ff act ar e co n c lu sive unle ss any re aso nabl e adj ud i cato r w oul d be co m pel l ed to concl ud e to the contr ar y. ”)
. Si m i l ar l y, the IJ ’ s “ [ c] re dibi l i ty deter m i nati ons ar e q u es ti ons off act and shoul d onl y b e ove rturned und erextr aord i naryci rcum sta nces, al though th ey m ust be supporte d by s peci fi c, co gent re aso ns that beara l egi ti m ate nexus to the fi nd i ng. ” B alogun v. Ashcrof t, 374 F. 3d 492, 4 98 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng Pop v. I
. N
. S. , 270 F.3d 527, 530-31 (7th Cir. 2001)).

B . Asy l um 8 U
. S. C. § 1 15 8(b) ( 1) a ff o r ds th e Att o r ne y Ge ne r althe d isc re tio n ar y a u th or ity to gra n t “ as ylu m to an al i e n . . . if the Attorney Gener ald ete rm i nes that s uch al i en i s a re fugee w i thi n the m eani ng o fse cti on 1 101( a) ( 42) ( A ) o f8 N o. 09

- 2156 th i s ti tl e. ” S ec ti o n 1 10 1( a) ( 42 ) ( A) defi ne s “r efug ee ” as o ne w ho is un able or un w il ling to return to her cou nt ry “b ec au se o fpe r se cut i o n o ra wel l

- f o unde d fea r o fpe r se cutio n on ac c ou n t o f rac e, re ligion , n a t ion alit y, m em b er sh ip i n a pa r ti cul ars o ci alg r o up, o rpo l i ti ca lo pi ni o n. ” The bu rd en of p roof is on the R am as t o show that they are “r efu ge es ” a n d are th u s eligib le for as ylu m . See8 C. F
. R. § 2 08 .13 (a). “ [ C ]re d ibilit y is t h e lin c h p inof a ‘w ell f ounded fear ’ cl ai m . ” Balog un , 3 74 F
. 3d at4 98
. Re g ar d in g a c l a i m o fwe l l

- f ounded fe a ro fp e r s e c ut i o n, a n a pp l i c a n t ’ s b u r d e n “ t u r n s l a r g e l y u p o n th e a p p l i c a n t ’ s o wn tes ti m ony and cre dibi l i ty. ” C apric v. A shcroft, 355 F. 3d 1075 , 10 85 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ). Th e t es tim on y of a n a p p l ica n t, if cre dibl e, m ay be s uffi ci ent t o susta i n the burden ofp ro of w ith ou t c or ro b or at ion
. Id. H ow ever, i fthe IJ fi nds the te st i m on y t o b e in c re d ible , cor ro b or at in g e vid en c e is re q u ire d

. Balog un , 374 F
. 3d at 500. I n thi s case , w e fi nd that the IJ ’ s cre dibi lity deter m i nati on i s supp or ted byr eas onabl e, subst anti al, and prob ati ve ev id en c e o n th e re c or d co n sid er ed as a w h ole . Th e IJ re lied on th r e e r ea so n s in en te rin g a n ad ve rs e c re d ibi l i ty deter m i nati on: ( 1) new f actual ass er ti ons ra ised d uring the p etitioners’ testim ony b e fo re the IJthat w ere not ra i sed to the i m m i gr ati on o fficer s a t the ai rpor t; ( 2) the pe ti ti o ne r s’ t es ti m o ny b efo r e th e IJ c o nc erni ng F er r i ck ’ s par ti ci pat i o n i n th e Democ r at i c Pa r tywas i nc o nsisten t w ith th e d ocu m en tary evid en ce; and ( 3) N atas ha ’s o r alt es ti m o ny c onc erni nghe rho spi ta l i za ti o n a nd the ho spi ta l i zati o n o fLe di a was i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe do cum en ta r y e vi den ce . W e wi l la ddr es s ea chr ea so n, i n tur n.N o. 09

- 2156 9 1 . Ne w Fa c t ua l As s e r t i o ns T h e IJ’s first b as is for q u es tio n in g t h e p et itio n er s’ c re d ibi l i ty i s s up p or ted byr eas onabl e, subst anti al, and prob ati ve evi dence. A s s he not ed, the peti ti oner s d id not d isclose at the airport an y d etails r egard ing N atas ha ’s ra p e, Fe rric k’s p olit ica l inv olv em en t w ith th e D em oc ra tic Pa r ty, the no ti ce tha t F er r i ckr ec ei ve d o r der i nghi m t o the pol i ce s tat i on, th e inci dent thatcause d Fer ri ck to go i nto h id in g, or t h e k id n ap in g of N at as h a a n d L ed ia. T h e IJ accepte d the peti ti oner s’ explan ati on that the r ape m ay not have been m enti oned bec ause of the c ulturaland other di ffi cul ti es o f di sc l o sing i t, but no te d th at “the om i ss i o ns ex ten d w ellbeyon d the m ultiple r a p e s to the very h eart of[t h e pet i ti oner s’ ] cl ai m : [ Fer ri ck’ s] Dem ocr ati c Par ty i nvol vem ent. ” S he f ound unconvi nci ng Fer ri ck’ s e xplanati on that he did notdi scuss hi s p ol i ti cali nvol vem ent a t the a i rpor t inter vi ew bec ause he di d not kn ow how m uch i nfo rm ati on t o disc l ose . T h e IJ als o fou n d th e p et itio n er s n otto be cr ed ible be c a us e a t the a i r po r t i nt e r v i e w, F e r r i c k di d no tst ate th e id enti ti es ofhi s daughter ’ s a tta cker s bynam e, despit e the f act that h e was abl e t o i denti fy the m en d uring th e M erits H earing. W he n presse d at th e a ir p ort f orthei r i denti ti es, Fe rr i ck m er el y i denti fi ed t h e m en as p eop le from “the city. ” Th e IJ foun d that the p e t it ioners di d no t p rovide a ny e xpl an at i o n t o r es o l ve the i nc o nsis te n c y a n d th at t h e i r f ailu re to d o s o w as a sp ec ific r ea so n t o s uppo r t ana dve r se c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n.10 N o. 09

- 2156 2. Ferri ck ’s I n volvem en t w it h t h e D em ocratic Party T he ne xt factor up on w hich th e IJ reli ed w a s Fe rri ck’s te st im o n y t h a t h e w as th e t ow n lea d er of th e D em oc ra tic Party, wh i ch w as not consistent w i th the l ett erFe rr i ck obt ai n ed v er i fyi ng hi s m em ber shi p. The l ett erdi d not m e n t i o n th at Fe rric k h ad an y lea d er sh ip p os itio n . Th e IJ h eld that “i t i s re aso nabl e to expect hi m to subm i t a let te r c o n firm in g h is p os itio n as an ele c te d lea d er [,] som eth ing signifi can tly differen t fro m m ere m em bershi p” i n l i ght ofh i s subm i ssi on ofa l ett erfro m the Dem ocra ti c Par ty. W e fi nd the IJ ’ s r eas oni ng so und and cannot sa y tha t i t was no t ba se d o n reas o nabl e, s ubs ta nt i al, a nd pr o b a t i v e e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d.

3. Nata sha’s and Ledia’ s Hosp i t al i zat i on Thi r d, i n mak i ngher adve r se c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n, th e IJ de te r m i ne d tha t N at as ha ’ s m edi ca ls tat ement from th e ti m e o fhe rho spi ta l i za ti o n indi ca te s th ats he w as a bout thre e m onths pregnant, and w as adm i tte d fo r tr ea tmento fa n “ i nc i pi en t ab do m en . ” The medi ca ldo cum entat i on di d not r efer ence torn cl othe s, br uis es, o r cuts on N atas ha’ s bo dy , a s s he had cl ai m ed. Based o n thes e i nc o ns i st en ci es , the IJ f o und Nat as ha ’ s test i m o ny abo ut he rr ape “ di sing enuo us . ” The IJ al so f o und tha t th e m ed ica l ce rt ifica te ind ica te d th a t N at as h a w as h os p ita l i z e d fo re i g htda y s , b utNa t a s ha t e s t i fi e d tha ts he had b ee n h os p ita lize d for th re e. N at as h a t es tifie d th at L ed ia w as h os p ita lize d for t w e l v e d ay s, b u t t h e m ed ica l ce rt ifica te i ndi ca te d tha t Ledi a ha d b ee n h o spi ta l i ze d f o rt en . The IJ de te r m i ne d tha t N at as ha ’ s ex pl an at ion t hat sh eN o. 09

- 2156 11 coul d not r ecal lthe num bero fdays that Led i a r em ai ned i n the hospi talto be “unconvi nci ng es peci al l y in l i ght o f th e p r e v i o u s d i s c r e p an ci e s r e g a r d i n g[ Na t a s h a ’ s ] o wn alle ge d h os p ita liza tio n .” A d m in . R . at 1 81 . Th at th e IJ re l i ed o n the medi ca lc er ti fi ca te a s wel la s te st i m o ny to rea c h h er ad ve rs e c r e d i b ility d et er m in at ion on th is poin t show s us that the det er m i nati on was bas ed on r ea so nabl e, su bs ta nt i al, a nd pr o ba ti ve e vi den ce i n the r e c o r d. Forthi s Court“[ t] o re ver se the BI A findingwe m ust fi nd thatthe evi dence noto nl y supports [ r ev er sa l ] , b ut co m pels i t. ” IN S v
. Eli as - Zacar i as , 5 0 2 U .S. 47 8, 48 1 n .1 ( 1992 )
. The IJ f ound the Ram as’ cl ai m o ffearto be not cred ibl e, an d she cited sp ecifi c, cogen t rea s o n s t ha t bore a l egi ti m ate nexus to that fi nd i ng. Because the evi dence does not com pel r eve rs al, we w i l laffi rm the IJ ’ s deni al of the Ra m as’ asylum clai m , and the B I A ’s sum m ary affir m an c e o f th e IJ’s d ec isio n .
C. W i t hh ol ding o fRem ova l 8 U.S
. C. § 1 231(b) ( 3) pro vi des that“the A tto rneyGenera l m ay not re m ove an a l i en t o a countryi fthe A tto rney General d ec i des thatthe al i en’ s l i fe o r fre edom would be thre ate ned in thatco untry because o fthe al i en’ s r ace, re l i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber sh ip in a part i cul arso ci al gr oup, o r pol i ti calo pini on. ” In or der t o gain re l i efunder thi s S ecti on, “the appli cant m ust dem onst ra te a cl ear p robab il ity ofp e r secu tion,” w hich i s “a m uc h m ore dem andin g b urden” than i s found in the a syl um co ntext. C apric, 355 F. 3d at 1095
. Therefor e, as w e have oft en12 N o. 09

- 2156

sa i d, “ i fa n a ppl i ca nt ’ s as y l um c l ai m f ai l s, hi s wi th

hol ding ofd epor tat i on cl ai m w i l lals o necess ar i l y f ai l

. ” Id. This rul e incl ud es thos e cl ai m s forwith hol ding of re m ov al u n d er C A T
. Se eAungv. Gonzal es , 4 95 F. 3d 742, 747 (7th Cir. 2007). B ecau se w e hav e foun d that the IJ ’s deci si on denyi ng N atas ha’ s as ylum cl ai m f ai l s, we m ust al so up hol d her deci sion denyi ng N atas ha’ s cl ai m f or wi thho l di ngo fde po r ta ti o n.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

5- 28- 10