FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J AN 29, 2007 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 06- 1188 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 95- 220- 784 FE RNA ND O A NI BAL SA

NT OS , Petitioner,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

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

aD ec isi on of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry29, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Fe rn an do Anib al S an tos , aU ru guay anc iti ze n, pe tit ion s f or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s’ ( “ BI A ’ s” ) or de rs dis m iss ing his appe al f ro m the2

Im m igr at ionJud ge ’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) or de r de ny ing his appl ic at ionf or a sy lum and withholdi ng of rem oval. O n appeal, S antos argues that he presented evidence suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s c la im

that he suf

fe re d f ro m pa st p er se cutio n and tha t he te sti fi ed c re dib ly a t hi s he ar ing . A n a lie n who arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S tate s m ay

appl y f or as y lum . I N A§ 20 8( a) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ). T he S ec re tary of H om el an d Se curi ty or the A tto rn ey

G en er al ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t a sy lum if the a lie n m ee ts th e INA's de fin it io n o f a “ refu ge e.” INA § 20 8( b) (1 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ). A

“ re fu ge e” is any person who is outs ide any country of such person's nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e any c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua lly r es ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or herself of the protec tion o f, that country because of per secution or a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a particular social group, or political opi nio n. IN A§ 10 1( a) (4 2) (A ), 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ). T he a sy lum appl ic an t c ar

ri es the bur de n of pr ovi ng s tatut or

y “ re fu ge e” status . N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity , the a lie n m

ust , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dib le ev ide nc e, e sta

bli sh ( 1) pa st p er se cutio n ona cc ount of astatut or ily

li ste d f ac tor , or3

(2) a “ we ll-founded fear” that the statuto rily listed factor w ill cause such future pe rs ec uti on. 8 C . F . R. § 20 8. 13( a) , ( b) ; N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87. “ D em onstratin g suc h ac onne ct ionr equir es the a lie n to pr es en t sp ec if ic , de ta ile d f

ac ts s how ing a goodrea son to fear that he or she w ill be sin gle d ou t fo r pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of ” a statut or

y f ac tor . N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87 ( quot at ion s om itt ed ) (e m pha sis in original). An asy lum

applicant m ay

not sho w m erely

that he has a protected fa ct or , but

m ust sho wthat he w as pe rs ec ute d be ca use of that f ac tor . I N S v. El i as -Z ac ar i as , 5 0 2 U.S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3 , 1 1 2 S. Ct . 8 1 2 , 8 1 6 , 1 1 7 L.E d .2 d3 8 (1 9 9 2 ). We have he ld tha t “pe rs ec uti on, ” as use d to il lus tr at e that an a lie n ha s su ff er ed “pa st pe rs ec uti on, ” is an “ ex tr em e co nc ep t, r equir ing m or e than af ewiso late d in ci de nts of ve rb al hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, and tha t m er e hara ssm en t do es not am ount to persecution.” Se pulv eda v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 401 F.3d 1226 , 1231 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (quotations andalterations om itted). W e re vie wc re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns unde r the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st, an d “ thi s c ourt m ay

not sub sti tut e its j udgm en t f or that of the [ IJ ] w ithr es pe ct

to cr ed ibi lity

f ind ing s. ” D -M uhum ed

v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 388 F . 3d 8 14, 818 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . I n or de r to r ev ie wac re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n, it

m ust f ir st b e established th at the IJ m ade an adverse credibility finding. See Y ang v. U .S . Attorney Ge n., 418 F.3d 1198 , 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). “ IJ's m ust m ake clean4

determ ination s of cre dibil ity .” Id. (quotation om itted). F urtherm ore, the I J m ust of fe r spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons f or an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity fi ndi ng. O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing is m ad e, the bur de n is on the appl ic an t a lie n to sho wthat the I J' s c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not supp orted by

specific, cogent reasons or wa s not based o n subs tantial ev ide nc e. Ac re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n, li ke any

f ac t f ind ing , m ay

not be ove rt ur ne d un le ss the r ec or d c om pe ls i t. Fo rg ue v. U . S. A tto rn ey

G en . , 401 F . 3d 1 282, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (citations and qu otation s om itted). If c re dib le , an a lie n' s te sti m ony m ay be suf fi ci en t, w ith out

c or ro bor at ion , to sus ta in h is b ur de n of

pr oof in es ta bli shi ng h is e lig ibi lity

f or r el ie f fr om

r em ova l. Fo rg ue , 401 F . 3d at 12 87. “ Co nve rs el y , an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n a lon e m ay be sufficient to suppo rt the denial of an asy lum application.” Id. H owever ,

“ an adverse cr edibilit y

determ ination does not alleviate the IJ's duty to consid er other evidence produced by an asy lum

applicant.” I f an applicant produces ev ide nc e be y ond his own te sti m ony , “ it is n ot s uf fi ci en t f or the I J to r el y

sol el y on ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity

de te rm inatio n intho se ins tanc es . ” Id . In this case, the IJ cleanly m ade an adverse credibility finding which was supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . B ec au se S an tos pr es en te d no doc um en tary or oth er e vid en ce of

w he n th e ev en ts o cc ur

re d, his int er

na l i nc onsi ste nc ie s a

bout tim ing and h is l ac k of

r ec al l of the de ta ils of

the inc ide nts sup porte d th e adve rs e5

credibility

finding. For instance, Santos claim ed that he wa s raped w hen he was attending nightschool andafter the incident he went to the police station wher e his unc le w orke d. H ow ev er , a t the ti m e that S an tos w as e nr oll ed in nig ht s ch ool , his unc le ha d be ende ad

f or tw o y ears . A ddi tio na lly , he c oul d no t r ec al l de ta ils ab out his inc ide nts of

pe rs ec uti on o r pr ovi de any doc um en ts f

ro m any sourc e to corroborate them . T herefor e, there is substantial evid ence supporting the IJ's fi ndi ng tha t S an tos f

ai le d to sho wthat he suf

fe re d pa st p er se cutio n or

ha d a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. A cc or din gly , S an tos f ai le d to e sta

bli sh that he w as e nti tle d to a sy lum . S ee N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 87. L ike w ise , S an tos a lso fa ile d to m ee t the m or e dif fi cu lt standard

use d f or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l. S ee id. at 129 2- 93. PETI TI ON FOR REVIE W DENI ED.