2008 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
5-2-2008 

# P ogho syan v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-5002

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 nova 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 2008 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P o ghos ya n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1278. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1278NOT 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. 06- 5002
M I KAYE L P OGHOS YAN, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

__________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 95- 476- 171)

__________________ S u b m itted u n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4
. 1 (a)

on J anuary18, 2008
B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay2, 2008

O P I N I O N2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: M i kay el Poghosy an pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the or derof the B o ard of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( BI A) a f

f i r mi n g t h e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( I J ) d e n i a l o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m,
w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. W e w i l l deny th e p e tit io n b e c a u se su b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd su p p o rts th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory Poghosy an i s a nat i v e o f A rm eni a. T he crux of hi s as y l um , w i t hhol di ng, and C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e cl ai m s i s t hathe w as per s ecut ed becaus e of hi s i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on, namel yhi s per cei ved af fi l i at i on w i t h for m er M i ni s t erof I nt ernal A ffa i r s and M ay or
o f Y ere van, V ano Syr y adery an, and ac cor di ngl yw i t h for m erPr es i dentT er - Pet r os s i an’s pol i ci es t ow ar d t he di s put ed N agorno- K ar abakh r egi on. Poghosy an ar gues t hat , beca us e of hi s i m put ed pol i t i cal opi ni on, he s uffe r ed bea t i ngs and har as s m ent and tw i ce f ai l ed the pol i ce
e x a m . H e c la im s th a t h e sto p p e d w o rk in g a t th e M in istryo f In ter n a l A f

f a irs a n d h id a t a f a m ily v a c a tio n h o m e b e c a u s e h e f e a re d h e w o u ld b e k ille d
. Poghosy an s ubm i t t ed document at i on i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , i n clud ing hos pi t al
r ecor ds , a l et t erfr om a ps y chol ogi s ti n A r m eni a, and an a r t i cl e fro m a publ i cat i on ent i t l ed A s ht anak
. T he A s ht anak ar t i cl e ac cus ed Poghosy an s peci fi cal l yof bei ng a “true embodi m ent [] of the t err ory ear s ” and “s t i l l pr act i c[i ng] t he s ame cruel and unj us tm ethods as [un der T er- P et ross i an].” A n in- cou ntrycon sul ar i nv est i gati on determ i ned t hat because3

A s htanak p u rp o r t e d t o b e t h e “ C i t y’ s I n d e p e n d e n tN e w s p a p e r , ” “ R e g i s t r a tio n N u m b e r 1 1 6 5 ,” th e c o n su late w o u ld e x p e c t A s ht anak to b e p u b lish e d b yth e o n lyp u b li s h in g h o u se in Y e re v a n a t w h ich a ll n e w sp a p e rs a re r e g is te re d a n d p rin ted a n d w h ich is th e o n lyf a c ili ty
w ith th e c a p a c ity to p ri n t a p a p e r f o r m a s s d is tr ib u tio n . H o w e v e r, A s htanak w as not reg ist ere d , an d the printi n g -ho u se m an ag er h ad n ev er h ea rd o f it
. T h e h o sp it al reco rds w ere
e x a mi n e d b yt h e F o r e n s i c Do c u me n tLa b o r a t o r y , wh i c h c o u l d n o ta u t h e n t i c a t e t h e m. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge deni ed Poghosy an’ s cl ai m s . She found thatPoghosy an w as
n o t cred ible b ec au se 1 ) he su b m itted a “f ak e” n ew sp ap e r a rt ic le, 2 ) th ere w ere i nco nsi st encies betw een hi s t est i m on y and his ow n docu m ents (i ncludi ng w i t h r espect to
w h e n h e sto p p e d w o rk in g a n d w h e n h e so u g h t p sy c h o lo g ica l tre a tm e n t), 3 ) he f a ile d to provide corr ob orat i ng do cum ents , such as m edical report s, and 4) he fai l ed t o cal l a w i t ness ( h i s m o t h e r ) w h o l i v e d i n P h i l a d e l p h i a t o c o rr o b o r a t e h i s t e s t i m o n y. T he B IA affirm ed the I J’ s deci si on and order, fi nd i ng no cle a r e rrori n the adv ers e
cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. T he B I A concl uded thatt he I J i den ti fi ed a numberof di s cr epanc i es b etw ee n P o g h o sy an ’s su b m itted e v iden ce , ap p li ca ti o n fo r re li ef , an d test im o n y , w h ich w ere centr al t o hi s cl ai m and w hi ch P oghos y an had fai l ed t o expl ai n convi nci ngl y . T he B I A s t at ed in p arti cu lar th at 1) the rec o rd w as eq u ivo ca l as to w h en P o g h o sy an w o rke d fo r th e M inistry of I nt ernal A ff

ai r s and w hen he l efthi s pos i t i on, 2) t he I J r eas onabl ydet erm i ned thatt he i nt egr i t yof Poghosy an’ s cl ai m w as compromi s ed beca us e t he cons ul arr epor ti ndi cat ed that t he A s ht anak

ar t i cl e w as notw hati tpurpor t ed to b e, a n d 3 ) t he I J not ed the “i ncongruousPoghosy an ar gues t hat t he I J ’ s fi ndi ngs ar e notent i t l ed t o defe r ence , as s er t i ng t hather 1 a n a lysis w a s e ith e r in s u f f ic ie n t o r b a s e d o n a n in a c c u ra te u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e re c o rd
. See Ba l a s u b r a ma n r i m v . I

NS , 1 4 3 F
. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (“[D ]ef ere n ce is no t du e w h ere f in d in g s an d c o n c lu sio n s ar e b a se d o n in f e re n c e s o r pr e su m p tio n s tha t a re n o t r e a s o n a b ly gr ounded i n t he r ecor d vi ew ed as a w hol e. ”) W hi l e part i cul ar s t at ement s i n t he I J ’ s deci s i on ( r ender ed or al l y ) m i ght have been m or e pr eci s e, her adver s e cr edi bi l i t y fi ndi ng appea r s t o be re a s o n a b ly g ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd
. 4 natur e” of

P og ho sy an’s cl ai m t hat he w as threat ened and m i streat ed b ut w as appa rent l yal so pr om ot ed af

t erhi s “i m put ed po li t i cal enemyr os e t o pow er . ” Poghos y an pet i t i oned for
re v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . 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 over Poghosy an’ s appea l under 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 1)
. W her e, as here, t he B IA defe rs t o the decis i on of an IJ , w e m ustrevi ew t he IJ’ s deci si on “t o assess
w hethert he B I A ’ s deci s i on t o defe rw as appr opr i at e. ” A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 23 9 F
. 3 d 542, 549 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. A dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e r evi ew ed fors ubs t ant i al evi den ce an d are uphel d i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F
. 3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). W e m u st u p h o ld a n a d v e rse c re d ib ility d e ter m in a tio n “ u n les s ‘a n yre a so n a b le adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o conc lud e t o t he contr ary . ’ ” I d. (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). 1 A n a sy lu m a p p lica n t n e e d n o t p ro v id e e v id e n c e c o rro b o ra tin g h is te stim o n yu n les s it
w o u ld b e “ re a s o n a b le ” to e x p e c t h im to d o s o . Zheng v. G onz al es , 417 F. 3d 379, 382 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i ng A b d u la i v. A sh c ro ft , 239 F. 3d at551)
. H ow ever , “‘ i f i tw oul d be5

r eas onabl e t o expec t corr obor at i on, t hen an a ppl i cantw ho nei t heri nt r oduces s uch evi dence
noroffe r s a s at i s fac t or yexplan ati o n as t o w hyhe .
. . cannotdo s o m aybe found t o have fai l ed t o m eet hi s . . . bur den of pr oof. ’ ” Zheng , 417 F. 3d at382 ( quot i ng A bdul ai , 239 F. 3d at551)
. U ndert he R E A L I D A ct , “‘ [n] o cour t s hal l r ever s e a det erm i nat i on m ade bya tr i er of f actw i t h res pect t o t he avail abil i t y of corr ob orat i ng evidence
. . . un l ess t he co urtfi nd s .

. . t hat a re as onabl e t r i er of fact i s compel l ed t o concl ude thats uch corr obor at i ng evi dence i s unavai l abl e. ’ ” Zheng , 4 1 7 F
. 3 d at 38 3 n . 2 (qu o ti n g 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (b)). II I. A n a ly sis A . P o g h o sy a n ’s A sy lu m C la im T he A t t or neyG ener al has t he di s cr et i on to g rantas y l um t o an al i en w ho m eet s t he defi ni t i on of a “ r efuge e. ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158( b)
. A n i ndi vi dual qual i fi es as a “r efuge e” i f he is “ u n a b le o r un w ill in g ” to re tu rn to h e r co u n try o f o rig in “ b e c a u se o f

p e rse c u tio n o r a w e llfounded f

earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m em ber s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” I d. a t § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ). T o e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty f o r a sy lu m , an a lien m u st d e m o n stra te p a st p e rse c u tio n b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e o r a w e llf o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n th a t is b o th s u b je c tiv e ly an d o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le
. B ut tv. G onz al es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. A n al i en s eeki ng as y l um “ha[ s ] t he bur den of
s uppor t i ng [hi s ] as y l um cl ai m [] t hr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m ony . ” G ao , 2 9 9 F
. 3 d a t2 7 2
. I n s o me
cas es , t he al i en maybe r equi r ed t o pr ovi de document aryevi dence t o m eethi s bur den of p ro o f
. I d.6

W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i o n i n t hi s cas e, w hi ch w as aff i r m ed byt he B I A , w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. W e have set outt hi s evi dence
a b o v e . M o re o v e r, in lig h t o f th e s h o r tc o m in g s in P o g h o sy a n ’s c a se , the IJ d id n o t er r in q u e s tio n in g th e la c k o f

c o rr o b o ra tio n f

o r P o g h o s y a n ’s c la im s . B . P oghosyan ’ s W i t hhol di ng of R em oval and C onvent i on A gai nst T ort ure Cl a i ms Poghosy an’ s cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval and w i t hhol di ng undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT o rt u re are bas ed on the s ame evi dence as hi s as y l um cl ai m . O ur concl us i on t hatthe adve r s e cr edi bi l i t y det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ap p li es w ith eq u al fo rce to h is w ith h o lding o f re m o v al an d C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re cl ai m s. I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill de ny P o g h o s y a n ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .