F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 2, 2006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Al ar có n , Un i t ed States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1345 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ BI AN o. A 79- 534- 515 MUHONG WU, Petitioner, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Petition for Reviewof a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 2, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and A L A RC Ó N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: Pe tit ion er Muhong W

u pe tit ion s f

or r ev ie wof

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ion Ap p ea l s ’ (“ BI A” ) d ec i s i o n , a ff i rmin g wi th o u to p i n i o n th e i m m i g ra t i o n ju d g e’s2

(“ IJ ”) or de r. T he or de r de nie d W u’ s a ppl ic at ionf

or a sy lum and f or w ith hol din g of rem oval und er the I m

m igration and NationalityAc t and for re lief under the U nited Nations Conventio n Against Torture (“ CAT ”). N o reversible er ror has been shown; w e de ny

W u’ s pe tit ion . I. B ACK GROUND

Wu, aCh ine se na tiv e an d c iti ze n, e nte re d th e U nit ed S ta te s a s anon im m igrant visit or in Novem ber 2000. She w as perm itted to rem ain in the United States for up to si x m onth s. A fter nine m onth s in the United States, W u applied fo r a s ylu m , wi th h o l d i n g o f r emo v al , a n dCA T r el i ef . In h erap p l i ca t i o n , Wu cl ai m ed she suf fe re d pe rs ec uti on f

or he r m em be rs hip in Fa lunG ong, am ove m en t banne d by

the Ch ine se gov er

nm en t i n 19 99. W

u a lso c la im ed

she harb or ed

aw el lfounded fear of f

uture persecution if she returned to China. Wu contends she began practicing Falun Gong in March 1998. In Sep te m be r 19 99 , W

u was arre st edby Chi ne se po li ce an d d et ai ne d fo r si x d ay s. D ur ing he r de te nti on, W

u say s sh e w as int er

ro ga te d th re e tim es . D ur ing he r fi rs t int er ro ga tio n, W

u c la im s go ve rn m en t of

fi ce rs pul le d he r ha ir , kno ck ed he r he ad on a ta ble c au sin g he r nose to ble ed , and k ic ke d he r w he n sh e w oul d no t kn ee l. S he3

ap pare ntl y

suf fe re d no phy sic al abuse dur ing the tw o late r int er ro ga tio ns; and s he al le ge s no f

urthe r phy sic al harm

sin ce he r de te nti on. D ur ing de te nti on, W u a lso w as m ad e to wri te a“ le tte r of r ep en tanc e, ” sig n an a gr ee m en t tha t sh e w oul d c ea se practicing Falun Gong, and pay a fine bef

ore her r elease. Af ter W u was r eleased fr om

detention, she returned to her hom e in Ta i Shan to find sh e had been fire d from her j ob. A t one poin t during h er testim ony before the I J, W u c la im ed she w as una

ble to fi nd o the r em

plo y m en t. B ut s he a lso te sti fi ed that sh e w as am an ag er

a t a f ood m anuf

ac tur ing c om

pany w he n sh e im m igr at ed to the U nit ed

S ta te s. W

u late r re cante d th at

te sti m ony . W

u a lso te sti fi ed be fo re the I J th at

she w orke d a s an a ssi stant i n ar el at ive ’ s st or e fo r the ro ughl y 13 m onths b etw ee n he r de te nti on and i m m igr at ionto the U nit ed

S ta te s. A ft er he r de te nti on, W

u c la im s he r tr av el w as r es tr ic te d; s he w as not pe rm itt ed to tr av el out sid e he r hom e pr ovi nc e w ith out pol ic e pe rm iss ion . W

u a lso wa s required to report w eekly to the poli ce. But W

u testified that she was never de nie d pe rm iss ionto tr av el and tha t, on at l ea st tw o oc ca sio ns, she tr av el ed to oth er Ch ine se pr ovi nc es . Wu also testified that -- afte r her dete ntion -- she continu ed to practice Fa lunG ong fo r 13 m onths b ef or e he r im

m igr at ionto the U nit ed

S ta te s. D es pit eThe asylum officer ’s assessment state s: “Applicant’s la ck of know ledg e on what Falun Gong 1 is a ll a bo ut c a sts int o do ub t wh e the r sh e is a re a l F a lun Go ng pr a c tit ion e r and wh e the r a

ny inc ide nts descr ibed by

her a ctually

happene d.” 4 co nti nui ng t o pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong, W u su ff er ed no f urthe r gove rn m en t intim idation or harassm ent related to her c ontin ued practice. At the c onclusi on of Wu’ s testim ony before the I J -- and after the I J considered Wu’ s “ dem eanor w hile testify ing . . . [and] the rationality , internal consist ency , and inh erent persuasiveness of her testim ony ” -- the IJ concluded that he ha d “ no f

ai th o r co nf

ide nc e in anythi ng [ Wu] tol d m e” and tha t W u w as “ tot al ly an d utte rl y

la ck ing in cr ed ibi lity . ” T he I J c onc lud ed that W u la ck ed c re dib ili ty b as ed , i n p ar t , o n th es e t h i n g s : (1 ) Wul i edo n h erp as s p o rt ap p l i ca t i o n ; (2 ) Wu pr ovi de d f

al se inf orm at ionto the U nit ed

S ta te s C onsu la te to obt ai n he r vis a; ( 3) Wu li ed w he n sh e state d sh e w as m ar ri ed ; ( 4) W

u of fe re d in co nsi ste nt t es tim ony ab o u th erempl o ym en ts t at u s du ri n g th e mon th s b ef o re s h e l ef

tCh i n a; (5 ) Wu of fe re d in co nsi ste nt t es tim ony about he r tr av el aro und the U nit ed S ta te s; and ( 6) Wu changed her story

at least tw ice during her testim ony and plainlydenied m ak in g e arl ie r st at em en ts -- th atsh e, in fact , hadm ad e -- b efo re t he co ur t. A ddi tio na l e vid en ce ind ic at ed that W u c oul d no t e xpl ai n th e ce ntr al te ne ts o f Fa lunG ong. 15

The I J also conclud ed -- a fter a ssum ing Wu’ s testim ony to be true -- that Wu di d no t su ff

er suf fi ci en t pa st p er se cu tio n or r ea sona bly f ear fu tur e pe rs ec uti on to m er it as y lum

or w ith hol din g or

r em ova l. T he BI Aa ff

irm ed the I J’ s de ci sio n w ith out opi nio n.
II. S TAND AR D OF R EVI EW The IJ’s o pi ni on is th e fi na l ag en cy de te rm in at io n s ub

ject t o o urrev ie w. Al Na jja r v . As h cr o ft , 2 5 7 F. 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ). We re v i ew th e I J ’s factual deter

m ination s under the sub stantial evidence test and m ust affirm if they are “ supp orted by

rea sonable, substan tial, and probativ e evidence on the rec ord co nsi de re d a s aw hol e. ” I d. a t 12 83- 84 ( int er na l qu otatio n om itt ed ). “ U nde r thi s hig hly de fe re nti al standard

of r ev ie w , the I J’ s de ci sio n c anbe r ev er se d on ly if the evidence ‘ com

pels’ a re asonable fact finder to find oth erw ise.” Sepulveda v. U .S . Att’ y Ge n., 401 F.3d 1226 , 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations om itted). W e re view de nov o th e IJ ’ s le ga l de te rm inatio ns. D -M uhum ed v. U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 388 F . 3d 814, 817 (11t h Cir. 2004 ).Wu also a rgues that she ha s met her bur den for a stay of re moval beca

use she ha s a likelihood 2 of succ ess on her asylum and withhol ding of remova l claims; and, Wu claims, the likelihood of harm if she is remove d to China is gre at. W e previously denied W u’s motion to st ay deportation, and we de ny he r r e qu e st f

or a sta y of re mov a l. 6 III . D I S CUS S I ON

Wu a sse rt s sh e suf

fe re d pe rs ec uti on s uf

fi ci en t t o c om

pe l a sy lum

and withholdi ng of rem oval giv en these events: (1) the Chinese governm ent detained her for six day s during which tim e she w as interrogated three tim es and suffere d som e m al tr eatm en t; (2 ) she los t he r j ob; ( 3) she ha d to r eque st p er m iss ionto travel; and (4) she w as m ade to report periodically to poli ce off

icials. W u further as se rt s th at

he r co nti nue d a ct ive part ic ipatio n inF al un G ong giv es he r a w el lfo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on s houl d sh e be m ad e to r et ur n to Ch ina

be ca use the Chinese governm ent continu es to persecute Fa lun Gong m em bers. A fter 2 review , w e conclude that the evidence does not com pel a conclusion that Wu was entitled to asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, or CA T r elief. T o qu al if y f or a sy lum , W

u m ust be a“ re fu ge e. ” A“ re fu ge e” is a pe rs on: w ho i s ou tsi de any

c ountry of suc h pe rs on’ s natio na lity . . . and who is unable or

unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un ab le or

unw ill ing to av ai l him se lf or he rs el f of

the pr ote ct ionof

, that c ountry

be ca use of persecution or a we ll-founded fear of per secution on account of rac e,7

re lig ion , na tio na lity , m em be rs hip in a part ic ular soc ia l gr oup, or po li ti cal op in io n . . . . 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 statut or y ‘ re fu ge e’ status . ” D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 8. A nd the “ de nia l of as y lum m ay be r ev er se d on ly

if the e vid en ce pr es en te d by the appl ic an t i s so pow er fu l tha t a

r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have to co nc lud e that the r equis ite fe ar of pe rs ec uti on e xis ts. ” Ma zari eg os v . U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 241 F . 3d 1 320, 132 3- 24 (11th Cir. 2001 ).

A . W u’ s C re dib ili ty

A n a sy lum

appl ic an t m

ust e sta bli sh h er e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum “by of fe ri ng cred ib le , di rect , andsp eci fic ev id en ce i n t he reco rd .” Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 0 1 F. 3 d1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 (1 1 th Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t ern al m ar k s an dci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Wu’s m ain evidence in supp ort of her petition was her own testim ony . The I J determ ined that Wu’ s testim ony wa s not credible because of substanti al i n co n s i s t en ci es an db ec au s e t h e I J co n cl u d ed-- b as edo n o b s er v i n g Wu’s dem eanor during testim ony and listenin g to her story first-hand -- that Wu wasT h e IJ s um m ar i z e d o n e o f th e s e i n c i d e n t s th i s w ay: 3 Then we have what [sic] Iwas que stion i n g h er ab o u t her pa ssport and I asked he r, why does your passport indicate that you are a manag er, and she say s, beca use at the time Iapplied for

my passpo rt I wa s a manag er. And Isaid, oh, what we re you a manag er of

? Iwas a manag er of

a food ma

nufac turingcompany . And I asked he r specific ally , at the time you applied for a nd g ot y our passport we re you a mana g er of a foodmanufa cturingcompany ? And she said, yes. Then when beingquestioned late r b y the g ov e rnme nt attor

ne y sh e ind ic ate d that she wa s not a man a g e r at the tim e 8 “ wi l l i n g t o s ay an yth i n g an dp u td o wn an yth i n g t o g et wh at s h e w an t s .” We rev ie w th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns un de r th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t. Id . Whe n t he IJ e nu m erat es in co ns is te nc ie s t ha t ar e su pp or te d i n t he reco rd , we m ay no t s ub st it ut e o urjud gm en t fo r th e IJ ’s on th e cre di bi li ty find in gs . DMuhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9. “ [A ] n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n a lon e m ay be suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the de nia l of

an a sy lum

appl ic at ion ” whe n no thi ng e lse ev ide nc es pe rs ec uti on. F or gue , 401 F . 3d at 12 87. “ O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity fi n d i n g i s m ad e, th e b u rd en i s o n th e ap p l i ca n tal i en t o s h o w t h at th e I J ’s cr ed ibi lity

de ci sio n w as not

sup porte d by

‘ spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons ’ or w as not ba se d onsub stanti al e vid en ce . ” I d. The IJ s etou t s pe ci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r hi s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n. Pe rh ap s m ost

dam ag ing to Wu’ s c re dib ili ty - - an d am ong the r ea sons not ed by the IJ in deem ing Wu not credible -- w ere those ins tances w hen she (1) twic e m ade a statem ent during h er testim ony only to deny m aking th at sam e statem ent when questio ned later; (2) gave inconsistent answers about her em ploym ent in China; 3she applied f or her passport, that she only

put that down beca

use the c ompany

that was a ssisti ngher w ith her passport told her to do that. And at that point Iinterrupted and I said, wait a minute. You told me earlier that you wer e, in fact, a mana g er a nd that you wer e a ma

nag er of a food ma

nufac turingcompany . And she flat out sa id she did n’ t sa y that. 9 an d ( 3) gave te sti m ony

about he r tr av el s inthe U nit ed S ta te s th at

c onf lic te d w ith te sti m ony f ro m JinChung Pang, af

ri en d of W u’ s w ithw hom

W u li ve d duri ng portio ns o f he r stay

in the U nit ed

S ta te s. W

u ha s a tte m

pte d to e xpl ai n th es e i n co n s i s t en ci es as th e p ro du ct o f s i m p l e mis u n d er s t an d i n g s . B u tev en Wu’s ex p l an at i o n s wo u l dn o tco m p el a r ea s o n ab l e f

ac t fi n d er t o re v er s e t h e I J ’s cr ed i b i l i ty d et er m i n at i o n . On th i s re co rd , s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce s up p o rt s th e I J ’s conclusio n that Wu was not cre dible. W e have w ri tte n th at , if

an a ppl ic an t “pr oduc es oth er

e vid en ce of pe rs ec uti on, w ha te ve r fo rm it m ay take , the I J m

ust c onsi de r that e vid en ce , and i t is n ot s uf fi ci en t f or the I J to r el y

sol el y on an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n in those ins tances.” Id. W

u did p resent other evidence of per secution bey ond h er te sti m ony : the r ec ei pt s he r ec ei ve d a ft er pay ing he r fi ne upo n r el ea se f ro m

“ A dm ini str at ive D et en tio n. ” T he r ec or d in dic at es that the I J c onsi de re d th is ev ide nc e -- and d id n ot r el y sol el y on h is a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n - - in de nyin g Wu’s p et it io n.10

T he r ec ei pt s how s on ly

that W u pa id a f ine to be r el ea se d f

ro m adm ini str at ive de te nti on. A lth oughthi s e vid en ce m ay pr ev en t this c as e fr om be ing de ci de d so le ly

on the a dve rs e cr ed ibi lit

y de te rm inatio n, W

u’ s c re dib ili ty

is st il l an im po rta nt fact orin ass es si ng th e ev id en ce as a who le . B. P as t P er se cu tio n & Re as ona ble F ear of

F uture P er se cu tio n

T o e sta bli sh a sy lum

e lig ibi lity , W

u m ust sho w( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n on ac co unt of astatut or ily

li ste d f ac tor , or ( 2) a“ w el l- fo unde d f

ear” that the statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor w ill c au se f

uture pe rs ec uti on. R

uiz v. U . S. A tt’ y

G en . , 440 F. 3d 12 47, 1257 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) (c iting 8 C.F .R. § 208.13(a), (b)). T he IJ co nc lud ed

that W u w as not e nti tle d to a sy lum

or w ith hol din g of

r em ova l be ca

use sh e d idno t d em on st rat e p as t p ers ecu ti on or a reas on ab le fearof f ut ur e p ers ecu ti on . W e ag ree. W e have w ritten that “ [n] ot all exceptional treatm ent is persecution.” Gonzalez v. Re no, 212 F.3d 1338 , 1355 (11th Cir. 2000). P ersecution is an

“ extrem e concept, requiring m ore than a fe w isolated incidents of verbal hara ssm en t or

int im idatio n, and . . . m er e hara ssm en t do es not a m ount to pe rs ec uti on. ” S ep ulv ed a, 401 F . 3d at 12 31 ( quot at ion s and i nte rn al m ar ks11

om it te d) . In Zh en g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 51 F.3d12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), we affi rm edth e d en ia l o f as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al when th e p et it io ne r, a Falun Gong practitioner who cam e to the United State s under circum stances sim ilar to W

u, w as de ta ine d f

or f ive day s by

Ch ine se auth or iti es and m ad e to w at chr ee duc at ionvid eo s and s tand i n th e sun be fo re sig nin g aple dge not to pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong. L ike W u, the pe tit ion er

in Z he ng w as f

ir ed f ro m his j ob a s a result of his Falun Gong practice. Id. at 1289. H e w as also subject to surveillance and periodic searches by

local officials. Id. A lthou gh the IJ deem ed the petition er in Z he ng t o be c re dib le , non e of the se thi ngs co m

pe lle d us to co nc lud e that the pe tit ion er suf fe re d pa st p er se cu tio n. I d. a t 12 90- 91. Wu a lle ge d si m ilar tr eatm en t i n he r as y lum pe tit ion . U nli ke in Z he ng, ho wev er, Wu co nt en ds th atsh e su ffer edso m e p hysic al ha rm du rin g h er d et en ti on . We ar e n o tp e r s u a d e dth a tth i s s i n g l e i n c i d e n to f d e t e n t i o n - - e v e n w i th s o me m ino r phy sic al harm

- - am ount s to pe rs ec uti on s uf fi ci en t t o c om

pe l a sy lum . T his posit ion is s trengthened som e by W u’ s lack of cr edibilit y . Other than her testim ony , W

u presented no eviden ce to substanti ate her claim that she suffered phy sical harm . Although the rec eipt from her fine is e vidence that Wu was de ta in ed , itis no ev id en ce t ha t s he su ffer edph y si cal ha rm du rin g h er d et en ti on . Wu ha s no t c ar

ri ed he r bur de n.12

Su bst an tia l e vid en ce a lso sup ports the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at W u f ai le d to es ta bli sh a w el l- fo unde d f

ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. W e have e xpl ai ne d: If an a lie n do es not

e sta bli sh p as t pe rs ec uti on, he be ar s th e bur de n of show ing aw el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on b y

sho w ing the se thi ngs: (1) he f ears per secution based o n his m em bership in a particular soc ia l gr oup, pol iti ca l op ini on, or oth er statut or ily

li ste d f ac tor ; ( 2) the re is a re as ona

ble pos sib ili ty

that he w ill suf

fe r pe rs ec uti on i f re m ove d to his na tiv e co untry ; and ( 3) he is una ble or unw ill ing to re tur n to his na tiv e co untry

be ca use he f ears pe rs ec uti on. Id . a t 12 91 ( ci tin g 8 C . F. R. § 20 8. 13( b) (2 )( i) ). A“ w el l- fo unde d f ear” m ust be bo th subjec ti ve ly gen ui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. Ru iz , 44 0 F .3dat 1 25 7. T ha t W u avoi de d pe rs ec uti on f

or 13 m onths i n C hin a w hil e co nti nui ng t o pr ac tic e Fa lunG ong supp orts the I J’ s de te rm inatio n th at W u di d no t have aw el lfo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on. S ee Z he ng, 451 F . 3d at 12 92 n . 3 ( co nc lud ing that su cc es sf

ull y a voi din g pe rs ec uti on f

or e xte nde d pe ri od “ is e vid en ce ind ic at ing the re is not

ar ea sona

ble pos sib ili ty

[ pe tit ion er ] w ill suf

fe r fu tur e pe rs ec uti on u

pon his return to China”). That no evidence suggests Wu was a Falun Gong leader al s o s up p o rt s th e I J ’s co n cl u s i o n . S ee i d . a t1 2 9 1 -9 2 (c i t i n g St at e D ep ar t m en t ’s 2002 Co untry

Re port onH um anRi ght s P ra ct ic es f or Ch ina in not ing that “ Fa lun G ong fo llo w er s w er e ge ne ra lly r el ea se d f

ro m de te nti on and . . . hars he st puni shm en ts w er e re se rv ed f or c or e le ad er s of

the m ove m en t” ). O n th is r ec or d,13

Wu has not carried her burden to show a r easonable poss ibilityof future persecution upo n her return to China.

C. W ithho lding of Rem oval & CAT Relief

Beca use we conclude that Wu has not s atisfied the less stringent s tandard for asy lum , she is also not entitled to withholdin g of rem oval or CAT relief . Id. at 1292 (citing Forgue, 401 F. 3d at 128 8 n.4).

IV. C ONCL US I ON

“ In vol ve m en t w ithF al un G ong in C hin a by it se lf doe s no t e nti tle ape rs on to asy lum in the United States. ” Id. T he IJ’ s decision is suppo rted by subst antial ev ide nc e. W e the re fo re de ny W u’ s pe tit ion . PETITION DENIED.