2005 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 Third C irc uit 6-13-2005 

# K elme ndi v . Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2545

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Kelme ndi v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1025. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/1025B o th A tto rn e yG e n e ra l G o n z a les a n d S e c re tar yC h e rto f f h a v e b e e n su b stitu ted in * p lace o f th eir pred ec esso rs pu rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (c). T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orU ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe ** N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 . 04- 2545

____________ NAI M KE L M E NDI Pet i t i oner

v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f th e U n ited S tate s; M IC H A E L C H E R T O F F , S e c re tar yo f D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity *

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce

B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls B I A N o. A 79 300 332

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

J une 9, 2005 B E FO R E : A M B R O , V A N A N T W E R PE N and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges ** ( Fi l ed: J une 13, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge B efor e us i s N ai m K el m endi ( “Pet i t i oner ”) w ho pet i t i ons thi s C our tt o r evi ew and vaca t e an or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce Boar d of Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) o n A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 . F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e g ra n t h is Pet i t i on forR evi ew , butonl yw i th r egar d t o the B I A ’ s concl us i on thathi s as y l um app l i cat i on w as fr i vo l ou s.

I. F a cts Pet i t i oneri s a 43- y earol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of A l bani a. H e w as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es on a t empora ryB - 1 vi s a on M ay18, 2000, and fa i l ed t o l eave atthe t i m e of the vi s a’ s expi r at i on. O n D ece m ber20, 2000, he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e and O ther C ru e l, In h u m a n o r D e g ra d in g T re a tm e n t o r P u n ish m e n t. T h e a p p lica tio n w a s re f e rre d to the Execut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a forr emoval proceed i ng s. A tan i ni t i al hear i ng befor e I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) D onal d V . Fer l i s e, Pet i t i oner conce ded thathe w as r emovabl e, butr enew ed hi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef. H e s ubm i t t ed copi es of s uppor t i ng document at i on ( i ncl udi ng tw o D emocr at i c Partym ember s hi p car ds and tw o A l bani an courts um m ons es ) , and the I J or der ed or i gi nal s be s ubm i t t ed t o the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) forfor ens i c t es t i ng. T he I N S i s s ued aH e re in a f te r “ A .R . a t _

__ .” 1 3 r eporton N ovember7, 2002, r eport i ng thatthe document s coul d notbe authent i cat ed b e c a u se th e d o c u m e n ts c o u ld b e e a silyo b tain e d in A lb a n ia a n d th e yc o n tain e d n o se c u rity fe ature s o r m ea n s o f e stab li sh ing that theyw ere o ff ici all yissue d . (A d m inistrati v e R ec o rd 1 a t 2 0 6 -0 7 .) A h e a ri n g o n th e m e ri ts o f P e titio n e r’ s a p p lic a tio n s w a s h e ld o n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 . A tthathear i ng, the I J hel d thathe w oul d notcons i deranyof the document s otherthan tw o D e m o c ra tic P a rtym e m b e rsh ip c a rd s b e c a u se th e o th e r d o c u m e n ts w e re p u b lic re c o rd s th a t h a d n o t b e e n c e rt if ie d a s re q u ir e d b yim m ig ra tio n re g u la tio n s . Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thathe had be en a mem berof the D emocr at i c Partys i nce 1990, and w as r es pons i bl e forencour agi ng y oung peopl e t o j oi n the party , as w el l as for p re p a rin g slo g a n s a n d sp e e c h e s. (A .R . at 1 5 7 -5 8 .) H e sta ted th a t h e w a s a p a rticip a n t in a ll d e m o n stra tio n s a n d g a th e rin g s d ire c ted a g a in st th e c o m m u n ist re g im e th a t w a s in p o we ra tth a tt i me , a n d h a d b e e n a rr e s t e d f i v e o rs i x t i me s b e twe e n 1 9 9 0 a n d 1 9 9 2 . ( A. R. at159. ) Pet i t i oneral l eged thathe w as s ever el ybeat en w i th cl ubs and w as ki cked f or betw een f

i ve and e i ghthour s w hi l e i n cus t ody , purpor t edl ybeca us e he w as partof an ant i - comm uni s tm ovement . ( A . R . at159- 60. ) I n 1992, the D emocr at i c Partybeca m e the head of a coa l i t i on governm ent , and al l of Pet i t i oner ’ s pr obl ems w i th the author i t i es c e a se d . (A .R . at 1 6 1 -6 2 .) In f a c t, his b ro th e r w a s e lec ted m a y o r o f T ira n a . (Id .) T h is r e s p i t e wa s s h o r t - l i v e d , a s th e Co mmu n i s t s r e g a i n e d p o we ri n th e e l e c t i o n o f 1 9 9 7 . ( A. R.4

at162. ) Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed thata D emocr at i c Partycandi dat e w as as s as s i nat ed i n 1998, s parki ng demonstr at i ons i n w hi ch he pa r t i ci pat ed. ( A . R . at164- 65. ) O ne mont h aft erthe as s as s i nat i on, the l ocal pol i ce a l l egedl yt ook hi m i nt o cus t odyand ac cus ed hi m of att em p ti n g to inc it e a co u p d ’état. (A . R . at 16 5 . ) P eti ti o n er stated that, the f o ll o w ing y ea r, h e a g ain w as tak en into c u stod yan d b ea ten f o r sev era l ho u rs. (Id.) H e d id n o t, h o w ev er, se e k m e d ica l trea tm e n t af terh e w a s re lea se d . (A .R . at 1 6 6 .) W h e n h e w a s s u m m o n e d to tes tifya g a in st a g ro u p o f p e o p le a c c u se d o f

p a rticip a tin g in th e a lleg e d c o u p , h e w e n t in to h iding an d sen t his w ife a n d ch il d ren to li v e w ith relati v es. (A . R . at 16 9 -70 . ) D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, and overobj ect i on, the G overnm entques t i oned Pet i t i oneraboutthe document s thatthe I J had pr evi ous l ydeemed i nadmi s s i bl e. ( A . R . at 188- 89. ) Pet i t i oneradmi t t ed he ha d tr avel ed t o G r eec e on M ar ch 24, 2000, and had r eturned t o A l bani a thr ee da y s l at er . ( A . R . at182- 88. ) W hen as ked fordet ai l s conce rni ng hi s tr i p, he t es t i fi ed fi r s tthathe had be en i nvi t ed bythe G r eek gove rnm ent , butl at er s t at ed thathe ac tual l ytr avel ed t o G r eec e t o as s i s ti n a pr i vat e bus i nes s deal . ( I d. ) W hen the IJ a sk ed w h yh e h ad n ’trem aine d in G ree ce , h e sa id h e h ad to return to A lban ia t o ca re fo r his fa m il yan d that the G ree k g o v ern m en t w o u ld n o t gran t asy lum to A lban ians . (Id.) T he G overnm entand I J al s o ques t i oned hi m as t o di s cr epanc i es betw een hi s as y l um a p p lica tio n a n d tes tim o n y , sp e c if ica llyw ith re g a rd to h is p e rm a n e n t ad d re ss a n d h is o c c u p a tio n . (A .R . a t 1 9 6 -9 9 .) T he I J i s s ued an or al deci s i on atthe conc l us i on of the pr ocee di ng. ( A . R . at119-5

30. ) H e conc l uded thatPet i t i onerw as notcr edi bl e, not i ng thats ever al contr adi ct i ons and i m pr obabi l i t i es i n hi s t es t i m onyand evi dence contr i but ed t o thi s fi ndi ng. T he I J further hel d that , even a s s um i ng Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onyw as deemed cr edi bl e, ther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d t o fi nd thathe had be en a vi ct i m of pas tper s ecut i on or that h e h ad a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n . T h e IJ d en ied P eti ti o n er’s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gainstT orture. F i nall y , P et i t i on er’ s asy l um app l i cat i on w as deem ed fri vo l ou s becau se the IJ bel i eved he h ad fa l si fi ed m em bershi p cards and had i ntent i on al l yfabri cat ed a f al se a s y l u m c l a i m. Pet i t i onerappea l ed t o the B I A , w hi ch, on A pr i l 30, 2004, adopt ed and a ffi r m ed the IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith re g a rd to P e tit io n e r’s f a ilu re to m e e t h is b u rd e n to e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty f o r th e re lief

re q u e ste d . (A .R . at 5 8 -9 .) H e th e n f iled a P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew w ith th is C our t . Pet i t i oneral s o fi l ed a mot i on w i th the B I A forcl ar i fi cat i on of i t s A pr i l 30, 2004, d ec isi o n . (A . R . at 7-9 . ) T h e B IA su b seq u en tl yco n firm ed that itag ree d w ith the IJ’s f in d in g th a t P e titio n e r h a d f ile d a f ri v o lo u s a p p lic a tio n . (A .R . a t 2 -3 .)

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval pur s uantt o s ect i on 242( a) of the I m m i gr at i on N at i onal i tyA ctof 1952, as amended ( “I N A ”) . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) (1 9 9 9 ). T h is C o u rt’s ju risd ictio n o v e r f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l g e n e ra llylea d s u s to6

r evi ew the dec i s i on of the B I A . H ow ever , i n cas es i n w hi ch the B I A m er el yadopt s the IJ ’s o p in io n , in w h o le o r i n p a rt , w e w ill r e v ie w th a t I J ’s d e c is io n . C hen Y un G ao v. As h c r o f t , 2 9 9 F . 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Ou rs c o p e o f r e v i e w i n th i s c a s e i s n a rr o w – w e w i l l aff

i r m anyfi ndi ngs of fa cts uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e ar e thus bound bythe admi ni s tr at i ve fin d ing s o f f

ac t un less a re aso n ab le ad jud icator w o u ld b e c o m p ell ed to arrive at a c o n tr ary co n clus ion . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 4 (b)(4 )(B ) (19 9 9 ); A b d il le, 2 4 2 F . 3 d at 48 3 . H o w ev er, “def er ence i s notdue w her e fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons ar e bas ed on i nfer ence s or pr es um pt i ons thatar e notr eas onabl ygr ounded i n the r ecor d, vi ew ed as a w hol e. ” B a las u b ra m a n rim v . A sh c ro f t, 14 3 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (q u o tin g C o rd e ro -T re jo v . IN S , 4 0 F . 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 7 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). F inally , w h en q u esti o n s o f d u e p roc ess a re ra is e d re g a rd in g a n im m ig ra tio n h e a ri n g , o u r r e v ie w o v e r s u c h q u e s tio n s is p le n a ry. E .g ., A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 5 -96 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

I I I . D i s cus s i on A s a th resh o ld m att er, w e f ir st ad d ress the G o v ern m en t’ s co n tention that w e a re w ith o u t s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t w o o f P e titio n e r’ s a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. A s s t at ed above , w e ar e empow er ed t o r evi ew onl yfi nal or der s of r emoval . A n or derof r e mo v a l b e c o me s “ f

i n a l ” u p o n a d e t e r mi n a t i o n b yth e BI A, o rth e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e t i me w ith in w h ich a n a lien m a yse e k re v iew f ro m th e B IA . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 7 )(B )(i)-(ii)Pet i t i onerdoes notaddr es s deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons forw i thhol di ng of r emoval or 2 p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re . T h e se c laim s a re th e re f o re d e e m e d to h av e b ee n w aive d . S ee , e.g., Y an L an W u v . A sh cro ft, 3 9 3 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 3 n . 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 ( 1999) . O nl ythos e cl ai m s thatar e r ai s ed bef or e the B I A can be ar gued on appe al s o that “the age ncyr es pons i bl e forcons trui ng and appl y i ng the i m m i gr at i on l aw s and i mp l e me n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . . . h a s h a d a f u l l o p p o r tu n i tyt o c o n s i d e ra p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i ms befor e theyar e s ubm i t t ed forr evi ew bya fe der al court . ” Theodor opoul os v. I N S, 358 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 7 1 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he G overnm ents ubm i t s fi r s tthat , beca us e the B I A expr es s l yl i m i t ed i t s adopt i on of the IJ ’s decis i on t o findi ng s r el at ed to Peti t i on er’ s cr edibi l i ty , the B IA did not address w hetherhe adduc ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o carryhi s bur den of pr oof t o s how el i gi bi l i tyfor as y l um and henc e no fi nal or derhas been i s s ued on thatpoi nt . T hi s ar gum enti gnor es

2 tw o cru cial fa cts: (1) in h is N o ti ce o f A p p ea l t o the B IA , P eti ti o n er su b m itted th at th e IJ e rr e d in d e te rm in in g , in tera lia , thathe di d nothave a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on; and ( 2) the B I A adopt ed the dec i s i on of the I J “i ns ofaras the [I J ] found thatthe r es pondentfai l ed t o m eethi s bur den t o es t abl i s h . . . hi s el i gi bi l i tyforthe r eques t ed r el i ef. ” ( A . R . at59. ) Fr om the l anguage of thes e tw o s our ces , i ti s cl eart o us that P e tit io n e r ra ise d th e iss u e o f su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , an d th a t th e B IA c o n sid e re d it and adopt ed the I J ’ s vi ew . A s w e r ece nt l yhel d, “[o] urpr ece denti s cl ear. . . thatw hen the B I A s i m pl yadopt s an I J ’ s deci s i on, w e mustr evi ew the I J ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal ag en cyd ec isi o n . ” L eia v . A sh cro ft, 3 9 3 F . 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 3 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e IJ8

concl uded thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d t o fi nd thatPet i t i onerhad b e e n a v ic tim o f

p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r t h a t h e h a d a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . A s th e B IA a d o p ted th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith re g a rd to e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g h is e lig ib ili ty f o r r e lie f , it is p ro p e rl yb e f

o re u s . T he G overnm ental s o ar gues thatthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatPet i t i oner ’ s as y l um ap p li ca ti o n w as f

ri v o lou s ca n n o t be re v iew ed b ec au se P eti ti o n er d id n o t app ea l th e B IA ’s A ugus t26, 2004, or dert o thi s C our t . Fr om ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, i tappea r s thatthe B I A r ender ed a de ci s i on i m pl i ci t l yaff i r m i ng the I J ’ s fi ndi ng of fr i vol ous nes s on A pr i l 30, 2004. Pet i t i onerr eques t ed cl ar i fi cat i on as t o w hetherornotthe dec i s i on s poke t o the f r i v o l o u s n e s s f

i n d i n g , a n d th e BI A su a sp o n te tr eat ed i tas a mot i on forr econs i der at i on on thatpoi nt , aff

i r m i ng the I J agai n on A ugus t26, 2004. D es pi t e thi s unus ual pr ocedur al h isto ry , itis c lea r to u s th a t th e B IA w a s o n n o tice o f P e tit io n e r’s c laim o f

e rro r w ith re g a rd to th e f

riv o lo u sn e ss f

in d in g w h e n h e in iti a llya p p e a led th e IJ’ s d e c isio n , an d th a t it im p li cit lyap p rov ed the IJ’s c o n clus ion : “[w ]e f ind n o m eritto the resp o n d en t’ s c o n ten tio n th a t th e [ IJ] re lied u p o n d o c u m e n ts w h ich w e re n o t in c lu d e d in th e re c o rd to fi nd that. . . the r es pondenthad fa b ric a tedp a rt o f h is a sy lu m c la im . ” ( A . R . at59) ( emphasi s added. ) I n ar gui ng thatthe Pet i t i onerm us tappea l the c la ri f ic a tio n /r e c o n s id e ra tio n , th e G o v e rn m e n t h e re is tru ly ex to llin g f o rm o v e r s u b s ta n c e . T h e B IA h a d a d e q u a te n o tice a n d o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re ss th is p o in t, an d it ap p e a rs it d id s o. I f anythi ng, i tw as the B I A ’ s br i ef opi ni on aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on thatw as the9

caus e of the conf

us i on and henc e the r eques tforcl ar i fi cat i on. Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m of err or w ith re g a rd to th e f

ri v o lo u s n e s s f

in d in g is th u s p ro p e rl yb e f o re u s . A . T he IJ di d n ot abuse h is discret i on i n ref usi ngt o a dm i tun cert i

f i ed d ocu m entary evi den ce, no r w as there any use of the d ocu m ents tha tvi olat ed d ue p rocess. A t th e im m ig ra tio n h e a rin g , the IJ r e f u se d to a d m it ce rta in A lb a n ian d o c u m e n ts th a t h a d n o t b e e n c e rt if

ie d p u rs u a n t to a n im m ig ra tio n re g u la tio n w h ic h s ta te s , in tera lia , thatan att es t ed copyof a f or ei gn r ecor d m ustbe cert i fi ed b yan o ffi cer i n the Fo rei gn S ervi ce of the U nit ed S t at es, st at i on ed in the fo rei gn cou ntryw here the record i s kept. T his off i cer m ust c e rtify th e g e n u in e n e ss o f th e sig n a tu re a n d th e o f f icia l p o sitio n e ith e r o f

(i) the att es t i ng offi cer ; or( i i ) anyfor ei gn offi cerw hos e ce r t i fi cat i on of genui nenes s of s i gnatur e and of fi ci al pos i t i on r el at es di r ect l yt o the att es t at i on ori s i n a cha i n of ce r t i fi cat es of genui nenes s of s i gnatur e and offi ci al pos i t i on r el at i ng t o the att es t at i on. 8 C .F .R . § 2 8 7 .6 (b )(2 ) (2 0 0 5 ). D e sp ite P e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n t to th e c o n tra ry , the IJ d id notabus e hi s di s cr et i on w hen he r efus ed t o admi tthe document s . W hi l e w e r ecogni ze that“8 C . F. R . § 287. 6 i s notan abs ol ut e rul e of e xcl us i on, and i s notthe exc l us i ve means of authent i cat i ng r ecor ds befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge, ” G ui C un L i u v. A s hcr oft , 372 F .3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), w h e n a n im m ig ra tio n p e tit io n e r is g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ityto authent i cat e byotherm eans and does not , the I J does notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng to a d m it th e m . L iu , 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 5 3 3 . A t h is in iti a l h e a rin g , P e tit io n e r w a s in stru c ted to have the document s cert i fi ed i n pr epar at i on fora mer i t s hear i ng. ( A . R . at138- 39. ) T he10

I J i nform ed hi m thathe coul d ei therhave the document s cert i fi ed, orr eques tnew d o cu m en ts an d h av e the m ce rt ifi ed p ri o r t o h av ing them sen t t o the U n it ed S tat es. (I d . ) P e tit io n e r d id n e ith e r. A t th e m e rits h e a rin g , the IJ w a s in f o rm e d th a t th e IN S F o re n sic D ocumentL abor at orycoul d notauthent i cat e anyof the document s fora var i etyof r eas ons , ( A . R . at147- 48; s ee a l s o 206- 7. ) , butther e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed s ugges t i ng thatthe A l bani an governm enthad i n anyw ayi nt er fer ed w i th the ce r t i fi cat i on process. C om pare L i u, 37 2 F . 3d at53 3. G i ven the u ncert ai nti es hov eri ng around these d o c u m e n ts, a n d th e P e tit io n e r’s f a ilu re to a u th e n tica te th e m in so m e w a y , w e c a n n o t sa yit wa s a n a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n f

o rth e I J t o r e f

u s e t o a d mi tth e m. Fur therm or e, the I J and the G overnm entdi d notus e thes e document s i n anyw ay thati nfr i nged upon the Pet i t i oner ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s . A s t o the I J , Pet i t i onerar gues that h e re lie d u p o n th e s e d o c u m e n ts in s u p p o rto f h is a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . H o w e v e r, th e IJ e x p re ss lysta ted tw ice th a t h e h a d n o t co n sid e re d th e d o c u m e n ts w ith r egar d t o hi s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on ( A . R . at125- 26, 128) , and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thathe ac t ed i n anyw aycontr aryt o thats t at ement . H i s deci s i on w as bas ed onl yon admi t t ed evi dence , namel yPet i t i oner ’ s as y l um appl i cat i on and hea r i ng t es t i m ony . T he G ov ernm ent’ s r eference t o the i nad m i ssi ble docu m ents si m i l arl yw as not a due p rocess vi ol at i on. I n r es pons e t o Pet i t i oner ’ s obj ect i on t o s uch us e, the I J m ade c l earthatthe G overnm entcoul d expl or e onl ydi s cr epanc i es betw een the hea r i ng t es t i m onyand w hat w a s s tate d in th e d o c u m e n ts. Ju st a s a w itn e ss in a c rim in a l trial c a n b e c o n f ro n ted w ith11

otherw i s e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ayt o i m peac h hi s tr i al t es t i m ony , s o her e coul d Pet i t i onerbe confr ont ed w i th di s cr epanc i es betw een hi s t es t i m onyand the document s he off er ed t o the i m m i gr at i on court . T hi s goes t o Pet i t i oner ’ s cr edi bi l i ty , notthe cont ent s of the document s . M or eover , Pet i t i onerw as gi ven an opportuni tyon r edi r ectt o expl ai n any c re d ib ili tyiss u e s th a t w e re e x p o se d b yth e G o v e rn m e n t’s u se o f th e d o c u m e n ts. T h e re is no i ndi cat i on thatPet i t i onerw as deni ed the abi l i tyt o m ake a r gum ent s on hi s behal f, se e A b d u lai v . A sh c ro f

t, 23 9 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), an d it i s n o t f u n d a m e n tally u n f a irto q u e s tio n P e titio n e r a b o u t d o c u m e n ts w h ic h h e h im s e lf o f f e re d in to e v id e n c e . T herefore, no du e process vi olat i on here l i es.

B . The I J’s adver

s e cr edi bi l i t

y f i ndi ng is s uppor t ed by s ubs tant i alevi dence . T h e B IA a d o p ted th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t P e tit io n e r w a s n o t cr e d ib le. T h is det erm i nat i on w as bas ed on s i x s peci fi c fa ctual gr ounds . W e r evi ew s uch det erm i nat i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence , a s t andar d of r evi ew thati s extr emel ydefe r ent i al and s et s “a hi gh hur dl e byperm i t t i ng the r ever s al of fa ctual fi ndi ngs onl yw hen the r ecor d evi dence w oul d compel . . . a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndert o m ake a contr arydet erm i nat i on. ” A b d u lra h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 7 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). W e a re re q u ire d to s us t ai n an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on “unl es s . . . no r eas onabl e per s on” w oul d have fo u n d the a p p li ca n t i n cre d ible. H e C h u n C h en v . A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2004) 

### .12

T h e IJ c ite d s e v e ra l r e a s o n s w h yh e f o u n d P e titio n e r’ s te s tim o n yto b e in c re d ib le . We n e e d o n l ya d d r e s s th o s e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s th a ta r e th e mo s ts e v e r e , s i n c e wh e th e rwe w o u ld re jec t so m e o f

th e IJ’ s w e a k e r g ro u n d s f o r a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g is i rr el evant– s o l ong as one of the i dent i fi ed gr ounds i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence an d g o es to the h ea rto f P eti ti o n er’s claim o f p erse cu ti o n , w e a re b o u n d to ac ce p t th e IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. W ang v. I N S, 352 F. 3d 1250, 1259 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng H a k e e m v . IN S , 2 7 3 F .3 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) . Fi r s t , the I J found i ncr edi bl e Pet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i on thathe w as beat en fors ever al h o u r s b u td i d n o tr e q u i r e h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n a n d wa s a b l e t o tr e a th i ms e l f wi th h o me r emedi es . ( A . R . at124. ) O n appea l , Pet i t i onerpoi nt s t o no r ebutt al evi dence as i de fr om hi s bel i ef thathe w oul d have be en harm ed furtherhad he gone t o a hos pi t al . N o m edi cal re c o rd s o r o th e r e v id e n c e w a s p re s e n te d c o rr o b o ra tin g th a t h e e v e r s u s ta in e d a n yin ju ri e s . T h is w as in su ff

ici en t t o m ee t his bu rde n to p rod u ce ev iden ce co m p ell ing a c o n tr ary fi ndi ng. Second, the I J s t at ed thati tw as unbel i evabl e thatPet i t i onerw as arr es t ed as a cocons pi r at ori n a coup d’ ét at , onl yt o then r ece i ve a pa s s por ts even da y s l at er . ( A . R . at124- 25 . ) Pet i t i on er chang ed h i s st orydu ri ng qu est i on i ng w i th regard t o h i s passport , fi rs t s ugges t i ng thatthos e w ho i s s ued the pas s por tw er e notaw ar e of hi s arr es tbut , w hen c o n f r o n t e d o n c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n wi th e v i d e n c e th a tth e P r e f e c tu r e o f P o l i c e i n h i s h o me to w n h a d sig n e d h is p a ss p o rt, th e n su g g e ste d th a t h is p a ss p o rt w a s a p p ro v e d b e c a u se it w as a mer e i dent i fi cat i on document . ( A . R . at181. ) T he I J w as j us t i fi ed i n notbel i evi ng13

Pet i t i oner ’ s ver s i on of w hathad occ urr ed, gi ven thathi s expl anat i on change d dur i ng the cour s e of t es t i m ony . See H arbi v. I N S, 242 F. 3d 882, 889- 90 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( uphol di ng cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng bas ed on appl i cant ’ s “pr opens i tyt o change hi s s t oryr egar di ng i n c i d e n t s o f

p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n ” ) . A tm o s t , th i s d e m o n s tr a t e s th a tP e t i t i o n e rw a s s i m p l y g u e ss in g a s to w h yh is p a ss p o rt w a s is su e d – c e rta in lyn o t su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to m e e t h is bur den of pr oof on appe al . T hi r d, the I J di d notbel i eve Pet i t i oner ’ s as s ert i on thathe w as i ns truct ed t o t es t i fyfal s el yagai ns thi s br otherand other s w ho w er e ac cus ed of tr eas on, a n d th a t h e w o u ld h im se lf b e in d a n g e r if

h e d id n o t d o so . P e tit io n e r h a d p re v io u sly test ifi ed that h e w as n o t a pro m inen t m em b er o f th e D em o cra ti c P arty , an d h is bro ther, w ho w as a more act i ve mem ber , w as abl e t o l i ve i n A l bani a undi s turbed. W hen as ked w hyhe w oul d be a t ar getbuthi s br otherw as not , Pet i t i onerr epl i ed that , beca us e of the under l y i ng confl i ctbetw een hi s partyand the C om m uni s t s , he bel i eve d he w oul d be m istre a ted if

re tu rn e d to A lb a n ia. (A .R . at 1 7 7 .) T h is b e lief is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to c o m p e l re v e rsa l o f

th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g . F in a lly , the IJ c o u ld n o t re c o n c ile Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onythathe w enti nt o hi di ng aft err ece i vi ng a courts um m ons w i th the factthat he w ent on a b usi ness tri p to G reece a few day s l at er. W hen press ed o n crossexami nat i on, Pet i t i oner ’ s des cr i pt i on of the tr i p change d as the governm entpoi nt ed out th e im p ro b a b ili ties in h is s to ry . W h ile it is n o t in d isp u te th a t P e tit io n e r tra v e led to G r eec e fors ever al day s i n 2000, the ea s e i n w hi ch he l eftand r eent er ed A l bani a gave the IJpau se. T his , w hen cou pled w i th P et i t i on er’ s chang i ng st oryw i th regard t o the purpo seB eca us e the B I A s um m ar i l yadopt ed the I J ’ s fr i vol ous nes s fi ndi ng, w e r evi ew the 3 IJ’ s d e c isio n d ire c tlyo n th is p o in t. 14 o f th e trip , ca n n o t b e o v e rc o m e b ym e re lya rg u in g th a t “h e d id n o t th in k c u sto m s o f f icia ls w o u ld k n o w th a t th e p o lic e w e re lo o k in g f o r h im .” B ri e f

o f P e titio n e r a t 1 6 . Forthes e r eas ons , w e ca nnots aythatther e i s evi dence compel l i ng an al t ernat i ve c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . T h e re f o re , P e tit io n e r h a s n o t es tab lish e d th a t h e w a s th e v ictim o f p a s t p e rs e c u tio n o r t h a t h e h a d a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . C . The I J i m pr oper l y determ i ned thatP et i t i onerhad f i l ed a f r i volous as

ylum appl i cat i on. W her e Pet i t i onerdoes gai n s om e gr ound i s w i th r egar d t o the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe fi l ed a f

r i vol ous as y l um appl i cat i on. W e r evi ew the fa ctual det erm i nat i on of the 3 I J thatthe mat er i al el ement s of Pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on w er e del i ber at el yfabr i cat ed under the s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( 2000) . H ow ever , the c o n c l u s i o n th a ta n a s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n i s f r i v o l o u s i s a l e g a l o n e , wh i c h we r e v i e w de novo . B a rr e to -C la ro v . U .S . A tty. G e n ., 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 8 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A s w e r ece nt l yhel d, a fi ndi ng of fr i vol ous nes s does notfl ow aut om at i cal l yfr om an ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination . M u h an n a v . G o n za les, 3 9 9 F . 3 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 9 (3d C ir . 2005) . I ndeed, the appl i cabl e r egul at i on r equi r es a s peci fi c fi ndi ng that( 1) s om e mat er i al a sp e c t o f th e a lien ’s c laim w a s f a lse ; (2 ) th e a lien k n e w , at th e tim e o f f ili n g , tha t th is m a ter ial a sp e c t o f

h is c laim w a s u n tru e ; an d (3 ) th e a lien , af tera su f f icie n t o p p o rtu n ityto d o so , fa iled to sa tisf

yth e IJ th a t an yd isc re p a n c ies o r im p lau sib ili ties w e re n o t th e re su lt15

o f d eli b era te fa b ri ca ti o n . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 2 0 (20 0 5 ). T he I J es s ent i al l yhel d that , beca us e Pet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onydi d notm ake s ens e and becau se the d ocu m ents he sub m i t t ed co uld have been fabri cat ed, he w as ip so fa c to g u ilty of fi l i ng a fr i vol ous appl i cat i on. N ow her e di d the I J orthe B I A m ake a s peci fi c fi ndi ng th a t P e tit io n e r m a d e a d e lib e ra telyf a lse sta tem e n t. R a th e r, b o th a ss u m e d th a t in c re d ib le t es t i m onypl us partym ember s hi p car ds thatw er e pos s i bl y f al s i f i ed equal ed a f

r audul ent appl i cat i on. T hi s w as i ns uffi ci ent . T he I J s houl d have poi nt ed t o s peci fi c ac t s bythe Pet i t i oner , expl ai ned w hytheyw er e mat er i al t o hi s as y l um cl ai m , and expl ai ned w hy Pet i t i oner ’ s excus es di d notr ebutan i nfer ence of fr aud. T he I J m ade no f i ndi ng thatthe document s w er e ac tual l yfr audul ent , how Pet i t i oner ’ s i ncons i s t enci es r os e t o the l evel of know i ng fal s ehood, norw hyPet i t i oner ’ s expl i cat i ons w er e i ns uffi ci ent . W i thouts uch fi ndi ngs , i ti s fart oo eas yt o concl ude, as w as done her e, thatan appl i cantdeemed incre d ible also inten ti o n all yatt em p ted to d ef rau d the im m igrati o n co u rt . A s the B IA no t ed, i tshou l d b e “l oathe t o q uickl yat t ach a label of f ri vo l ou sness . . . t o an app l i cant’ s .

. . e x e r c i s e o f

h i s l e g a l r i g h t s . ” ( A. R. a t0 2 - 0 3 ( q u o t i n g M a t t e ro f Ch e u n g , 1 6 I . & N. D ec. 244 ( B I A 1977) . ) Fi ndi ng thatan as y l um appl i cat i on i s fr i vol ous i s a del i cat e mat t er w i th severe con sequen ces for the ap pli cant, and shou l d thus be u sed as a scal pel, no tas a c lu b . W e th e re f

o re d isa g re e w ith th e B IA ’s r u lin g o n th is p o in t.16 I V . C oncl usi on W e c o n c lu d e th a t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, thatthe I J w as corr ecti n r efus i ng t o admi tuncert i fi ed, unauthent i cat ed d o c u m e n ts in to th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd , an d th a t re f e re n c e to su c h e x c lu d e d d o c u m e n ts for i m peach m ent purposes onlyw as not a due p rocess viol at i on . T herefore, w e m ust af firm the B IA ’s ord er o f re m o v al. H o w ev er, be ca u se th e B IA assu m ed P eti ti o n er’s appl i cat i on w as fr audul entw i thoutm aki ng the nec es s aryfac tual fi ndi ngs , w e gr antthe P e t i t i o n f

o rR e v i e w o n th i s p o i n to n l y.