2004 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 11-23-2004 

# H a s s a n v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1005

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H as s a n v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 127. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/127NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-1005

SYED Z UFI GAR UL HAS SAN, Petitioner
v. JOHN ASH CROFT, ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent

On Petiti on for Review of a Decisi on of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A70-528-890)
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 25, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , FIS HE R a nd A LD ISE RT , Circuit Judges (Fil ed November 23, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. Petitioner Sy ed Zulfigar Ul Hassan, a native and ci tize n of Pakist an, seeks review of a finalorder of r emoval iss ued by t he Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) on Dece mber 5 , 2002. Th e order aff irmed the im migration jud ge’s decision to deny M r. Hassan’s r equest for

asy lum, withholding of removal and protecti on under the Con vention A gainst Torture . We h ave jurisdiction to review the BIA ’s order und er 8 U.S .C. § 12 52. We wil l a ffirm. I
. Mr. Hassan arri ved in theUnited States on or about July24, 1991, a s a nonimmigrant

visi tor wit

h permissi on to remai n untilJanuary23, 1992. He st ayed be yond the authorized pe riod and fi led a re quest for asy lum based on pers ecuti on for poli tica l opi nio n on Ap ril 9, 1 992
. Before coming to t

his count ry , Mr. Hassan was an auto mechanic and a member of the lef t-leanin g Pa kistan P eople ’s Party (P PP) in the tow n of Gu jrat. He claim s that in April 1991, while the local government was under the control of the fundamen talis t M uslim Le agu e pa rty, he w as d etain ed f or six teen days a nd b eate n by th e po lice. Accordi ng to Mr. Hassan, he was r elea sed fr om jai l onl y a fter his fath er andothe r PPP members paid 80, 000 rupees t o authori ties . He was alle gedlyhospit aliz ed for two weeks
as a r es ul t o f the be atin gs . H e s ubs eq ue nt ly re tu rn ed to hi s j ob a s a n a ut o me ch an ic . H e claim s that a f ew we eks late r, plain-c lothes p olice a nd/o r Islam ic terrorists shot a t his3

garage. He then decided to leave Paki stan. Mr. Hassan beli eves he coul d be detai ned again if he is re turned to Pa kistan u nder the pre sent m ilitary gove rnm ent be caus e of h is past persecution and certai n damage-to-property complaints and warrants fil ed against him at that ti me. He has not been ac tivel y i nvolved with t he PPP since l eaving Paki stan. At a he aring on A ugust 8, 20 01, the imm igration judge d enied M r. Hassan’s asylum, w ithhold ing, an d C onv ention Ag ainst T orture claim s. No ting inc onsiste ncies in his t esti mony and his asy lum appli cati on submissi ons, the immigration judge f ound that M r. Has san w as no t credib le and that he had f ailed to establish past p ersecu tion or a we llfou nded fear o f futu re pers ecutio n. H e also f oun d that h e w as no t likely to be to rtured if he were returned to Paki stan. Where the BIA summarily affirms t he immigration judge’ s decis ion without opi nio n, w e rev iew the im mig ratio n ju dge ’s op inio n. Dia v. Ash croft, 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) . We review the i mmigrati on judge’s factualdetermi nations under the s ubstantial e vidence st andard, meani ng that we wil l uphold fi ndings “t o the extent theyare ‘s upported byreasonabl e, subs tanti al, and probati ve evidence on t he record cons idered a s a whole.’ ” Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F .3d 157, 16 1 (3d. Cir. 1998) (quoting INS v. E lias- Za car ias, 502 U.S . 478 (19 92) ). II
. For a petitioner to establish he is a refugee eligible for asy lum, he must demonstrate that

he is unabl e or unwill ing to return to his count ry of origi n “because of4

pe rse cu tio n o r a w ell -f ou nd ed fe ar ofpe rse cu tio n o n a cc ou nt of ra ce , re lig io n, n ati on ali ty, memb er sh ip in a p arti cu lar s oc ia l g ro up, orpol it ic al opi ni on. ” 8 U. S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A) (199 9). A petition er for asylum b ears th e bur den o f sup porting his claim throu gh cr edible testim ony. Ga o v. A shc roft, 299 F. 3d 266 , 272 ( 3d C ir. 2002 ). An adve rse cre dibility finding by

the immigr ation j udge should be s upported bya specif ic, cogent re ason for the disb elief in p etitio ner ’s tes timo ny. Ba lasu bra ma nrim , 143 F.3d at 161- 62. In as serting a claim und er the Co nvention A gainst Torture , the applicant m ust establish “that it is more likel y than not that he or s he would be tort ured if removed to the pr oposed country of
remo val.” 8 C.F .R. § 2 08.16 (c)(2); see also Ta rra wa lly v. A shc roft, 338 F. 3d 180, 188 (3d Cir . 200 3). In find ing M r. Has san’s te stimo ny not cre dible, th e imm igration judg e poin ted to incon sistenc ies in his testimo ny regard ing the follow ing: the place of h is arrest in Ap ril 1991, the extent

of his pol iti cal activities after his detention, t he date of t

he shooti ng at the gara ge and the i dentit y of t he shooter s. The i mmigrati on judge al so noted t hat supporti ng letters fr om M r. Hassan’ s lawy er in Paki stan and PPP dis tri ct pres ident l acked
cor rob ora ting deta ils ab out his a rrest , tortu re an d re sultin g tw o-w eek hos pital izatio n. Although Mr. Hassan mayhave explanat ions for these ambi guiti es, we could f ind nothing i n the rec ord on appeal to show that the immigr ation j udge lacked s ubstantial evidence i n making his adve rse cr edibil ity finding. After noti ng the inc onsistencies, the immigration judge dul y exami ned Hassan’s s ubmissi ons to seeif corroborati on might5

she d lig ht o n th em . Th e co rrob ora ting letter s, ho we ver , lack ed s pec ific in for ma tion
. Hassan’s attorneypoints to no other facts i n the rec ord and makes no argument to the effect t hat theimmigration judge ove rlooked or ignored relevant

facts t hat would res olve the ambigui ties in Mr. Hassan’s favor. As suc h, we conclude on t his re cord that substant ial e vidence suppor

ts the immigration judge’ s adverse credibi lit y determination. Hassan also argues that his case shoul d be reopened and remanded because of a changed circumstance, namely his marriage t o a Hindu woman of Indian ori gin and a Un ited Sta tes citizen . Has san c laims th at, if forc ed to re turn to P akistan , both h e and his wif e a nd f ami ly wou ldbe at

ri skof pe rs ec utio n onac co unt of he r r ac e, re li gi on and U S citizens hip. T he B IA f oun d, how ever, th at “[H assan ] did n ot suf ficien tly demo nstrate that co ndition s in Pa kistan h ave c hang ed su ch tha t he, as a n ‘A meric anize d’ M uslim Pakist ani, or as the husband of a Hindu Unit ed State s citizen of I ndian desce nt, wil l suffer perse cution or tortu re if rem oved to Pa kistan.” Eve n takin g into a ccou nt the d eplora ble state of Muslim-Hindu rel ations in Pakis tan, we do not beli eve that the fact of his r ecent marriage a dds eno ugh to M r. Hassan’s c laim to supp ort a well-fou nded f ear of fu ture persecution in t

his cas e, espec ially where s ubstantial e vidence otherwise under pins deni al of t he c la im. III. For the foregoing rea sons, we concl ude that substant ial e vidence suppor

ted the immi gr at io n j udg e’ s f

in di ngs andth e BI A’s or der . We wil l a cco rd in gl y aff irm.