NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 07a0417n.06 Filed: June 19, 2007 No. 06-3558 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
VASI L IVAKHT ANG B ESHKENADZ E and J UL I YA VI CTOROVNA KO VAL EVA, Pe tit ion e rs , v. AL BERTO R
. G O N Z A L ES, Attorney Gene ral of the Un ite d St a te s, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEA L FROM THE B OARD OF I MMI GR AT I ONAPP EA L S
OPI NI ON

Be for e : G UY , BA TC HELD ER , a nd G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Vasili Vakhtang Be shkenadze, a

native of the Republic of Ge org ia, and his wife J uliy a Victorovna Kovaleva, a native of Russia, ente red the United States as nonimmigra

nt visit ors in the late 1990s. B oth overstay ed their g overnme nt-authorized welcome . Be shkenadze filed a n application for

asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and prote ction under the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( CAT) for both him and his w ife in Aug ust of 2000, but the
a pp lic a tio n w a s ine xplic a

bly no t pro c e sse d by the g ov e rnme nt fo r s e ve ra l y e ars . F oll ow inga me ri ts hear ing in late 2004, an I mmigration J udg e (I J ) denie d the petitioners’ r equest for relief and orde red them remove d. Th e Board of Immigration Appeals (B I A) summarily aff irmed the I J ’s dec isionNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 2 - w it h o u t o p in io n , s tati n g o n ly th a t t h e I J’ s f a c tu a l f in d in g s w e r e n o t c le ar ly

e r r o n e o u s . B e s h k e n a d ze and his w ife timely petitioned for r eview. F or the re asons set for th below, we DENY their petition.
I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al b ac kgr ound As g ro un ds fo r a sylum , B e sh ke na dze ’s a pp lic a tio n all e g e d what he de sc ri be s as two “ c y c le s”
o f p e r s e c u t i o ni nh i s l i f

e . E a c ho f

t h e c yc l e s , w h i c hw e r e s e p a r a t e d b y a qu art e r o f a c e n tu r y, revolve d around Be shkenadze’s J ewish heritag e as well as his c hildhood ne ighbo r, Gocha Te dv ia sh vil i. Th e fi rs t c y c le date s to B e sh ke na dze ’s te e na g e y e ars in the 19 70 s, wh e n T e dv ia sh vil i and his cohorts alleg edly

tormented B eshkena dze at school for being J ewish. Ac cordingto Be shkenadze, this tormenting occ asionally erupte d into violent, “savag e” a cts. Amongthese wa s a cha se of Be shkenadze by

a “stude nt mob” that ended in his jumping f rom one building to another a nd

“ su sta ini nga

se ve re kid

ne y inj ur y that r e qu ir e d e xten siv e surg e ry .” He a lso a lle g e s that T e dv ia sh vil i kil l e d B e s h k e n a d z e ’ s p u

p p y b y h an g i n g i t i n p l a i n v i e w “ an d th e n t a un t e d M r . B e s h ke na dze wi th anti-Semitic epithets as he g azed upon that atroc ity .” The sec ond cycle of

alleg ed per secution date s to Bes h k en ad ze’s adulthood some 25 y ear s later in the mid-1990s. At the time, Te dviashvili had joined wi t h a g roup of militants who were seeking to violently overthrow the t hen-r uling gove rnment of Geor g ia hea ded by President Eduar d Shevardna dze. Be shkenadze ha d a cha nce “ roadside encounter ” with Tedviashvili sometime during 1994. Along side Tedviashvili wer e sever al men dresse d in military attire and, from B eshkena dze’sNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 3 - perspe ctive, see mingly

arme d. Fr ighte ned, B eshkena dze ag ree d to Tedviashvili’s reque st to drive h im an d h is me nto an u n d is c lo s e d lo c a ti o na

p p r o xim a te ly

o n e mi le aw ay . L ittl e d id B e s h k e n a d ze know that Tedvia shvili and his men were then eng ag ed in an unsuc cessf ul attempt t o m u rder an of fi c ia l in the She va

rd na dze g ov e rnme nt. Be shkenadze lea

rned of t h i s i ncident, as w ell as of Te dviashvili’s subsequent succe ssful murderous attempts, o n ly y ear s later upon the 1997 publication of a new spaper article that
re pr od uc e d e xce rp ts o f a

ja ilh ou se int ervi ew with T e dv ia sh vil i. I n th a t art ic le , T e dv ia sh vil i ref ere nced B eshkena dze by

name, but explicitly

absolved him of any

responsibility

for—or , for that matter, an y k n owledg e of—Te dviashvili’s crimes. B eshkena dze never theless bec ame pa

rt of a po lic e inq

ui ry , du ri ng whichhis int e rr og a tor s, he a lle g e s, “ ma de it c le ar t o h im that he wa s to cooper ate with their w ishes or suffe r the most sever e conse quence s.” This threat alleg edly included
a wa rn ingfr om a

dis tr ic t a tt o r n e y n a m e d S i p r i o n i th a t “ un le ss B e sh ke na dze pe rf or me d to [Sipr ion i’ s] satisfac tion, he would meet the same fate as did ‘the Jews duringthe Soviet era .’” B e sh ke na dze ha d o bta ine d a de g re e in hy dr og e olo g y , a nd Sip ri on i put hi m to wo rk at a mineral-w ater

plant in which Siprioni had an owne rship inte re s t
. I n his asylum application, B e sh ke na dze re fe rr e d to his wo rk a t the pla nt a s “ sla ve la bo r” that pa id h im n oth ing . B ut d ur inghis testimony befo re the I J , Be shkenadze c oncede d that he had r ece ived compensation for his time,
a lbe it a min ima l amou

nt. He ma int a ine d h is b e lie f, ho we ve r, that he “ ha d no ch oic e but to c on tr ibute his la bo r at the tim e .” Th is co e rc ion , he c lari fi e d, wa s dir e c tly a ttr ibuta ble to S ipr ion i’ s anti -S e mit ic thr e a t a bo ut t he fate of the Jew s dur ing the Sov ie t er a . Be sh ke na dze te sti fi e d th a t he un de rs too d th is threat to refe r t o the S oviet-er a pra ctice that “[e]very time the J ews we re a

rre sted, particula

rly duringNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 4 - the war ti me , . . . n o b o dy

e v e r s aw th e m b a c k
. ” Co n tr ib u ti n g to B e s h k e n a d ze ’ s f e ar w a s a r e p o rt fr om h is m oth e r i n 1 99 8 th a t T e dv ia sh vil i ha d a lle g e dly c ha ng e d h is m ind

and de c ide d to imp lic a te B e sh ke na dze a ft e r a ll i n th e 19 94 mur de r p lot . B ut B e sh ke na dze of fe re d n o e vid e nc e to s up po rt thi s alleg ed cha

ng e of he art. Mo re g e ne ra lly , B e sh ke na dze a lle g e d th a t thro ug ho ut h is l if e he ha d e nc ounte re d “ant iSemitic-inspired profe ssional discrimination,” including “d am age” to his budding socc er c are er, insurmountable obstacle s to his pursuit of an advanc ed degree , and a loc al school’s re fusal to ac cept his children int o the Kinderg arte n prog ram. This alleg ation rang particula rly hollow to the I J , who
no te d a s f oll ow s: De sp ite the fa c t th at the re sp on de nt f e e ls t hat he wa s d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t in his athletic ca

ree r and a car eer as a hydro g eolog ist, he was able to make a living . He wa s a ble to s ave up e no ug h mo ne y to e xpa nd the pigfa rm , to inv e st i n th e c ar w a sh in Moscow and he presumably had some money i n t h e b an k or he w ouldn’t have been a ble to g et a non-immigra

nt visa to come to the Unit ed States, so the re spondent was doingfairly

well. He e ven owne d a ca r which not e very

body did in Georg ia.

. . . Plus we have his sisters. They presumably

have the same mother a

nd the same f

ather and y et one sister is a doctor and the other sis ter is a lawy er, so they seeme d to have surv ive d th e anti -S e mit ism fa ir ly we ll. Even more troubling to the I J was the very source of this a nti-Semiti s m : Be shkenadze’s J e w i s h n e s s . B e s h k e n a d z e o f f e r e d h i s m o th e r ’ s b i rth c e rt i f

i c a t e a s p r o o f

o f h i s tr u e r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i ty. (Unde r traditional Jewish law, a child’s r elig ion is determin ed by the re ligion of the mother.) Al tho ug h th e I J ac c e pte d th e bir th c e rt if ic a te a s a c c ur a te , he qu e sti on e d ho w B e sh ke na dze , a s w e ll
a s eve ry oth e r me mbe r of his imm e diate fa mil y , c ou ld n ot h ave kn ow n o f h is m oth e r’ s Jew ishne ssNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 5 - until he turned 16 y ear s old. At that tim e, B eshkena dze’s fathe r had a pplied for membership in the Com mun ist

Part y , a nd the KG B de nie d th e fathe r’ s a pp lic a tio n u

po n d isc ov e ry

of his wi fe ’s Jew ish identity . The I J also questioned whe ther this reve lation could actua lly have ha d so pro fo u n d an
e f f e c to nB e s h k e n a d z e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a th e l i v e d a d e c i d e d l y

n o n - J e w i s hl i f

e . Inp art i c u l ar , th e IJ noted that B eshkena dze was baptized and ra ised as an orthodox Christian, and that he ha s remaine d a devout membe r of the G eorg ian Orthodox Church to the prese nt day
. B. P r oc e dur al b ac kgr ound Kovaleva ’s ap p l i ca t i o ni s en t i re l y d er i v at i v e o f h er

hu s b an d ’s
. Bo thap p l i ca t i o n s l ay dormant until a merits hear ing in late 2004, at which time the I J deter mined that Be sh k en ad ze was not
cre dible, denied his re quest for r elief, a nd order ed him and his wife r emoved. A sing le judg e of the BIA summarily aff

irmed the I J ’s decision without opinion. The BIA judg e did note, howe ver, that the I J ’s finding s of fac t w ere not c lear ly err oneous. Be shkenadze a nd his wife timely

appea led the BIA’s orde r. This court stayed their r emoval pendingresolution of the pre sent appe al.
II. AN AL YSI S A. As ylu m c lai m Be cause the B I A summarily adopted the I J ’s dec ision without issuing its own opinion, we revie w the decision of the I J as the fina l administrative order
. Ha sa n v . A sh c ro ft , 397 F.3d 417, 419 (6th Cir. 2005). Questions of lawinvolving immigr ation proce eding s are revie wed de novo. Ali v. As hc ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 409 ( 6th Cir. 2004). We will affirm the I J ’s fa ctual finding s, as well as the deter mination that the petitioner failed to e stablish eligibility for a s y l u m , if substantial evidenc eNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 6 - supports such deter

minations. INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (upholdingthe I J ’s ruling s if “supported by

rea sonable, substantial, and pr obative evidenc e on the re cord c onsidered a s a whole” ) (c itation omit ted). Unde r this sta ndard, w e will not reve rse a fac tual deter

mination of the I J unle ss w e fi nd “ that the e vid e nc e no t only su pp or ts a c on tr ary c on c lus ion , b ut c om

pe ls it.” Marku

v . A sh c ro ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in orig inal). 1. Subs tanti al evidence supports the IJ’s fin d

ing th at Beshkenadze was n ot c re dib le Cr e dib ili ty

fi nd ing s are fi nd ing s o f f a c t and are the re fo re re vie wed un de r t he su bs tanti a levidenc e standa

rd. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 (6th Cir. 2004)
. “Eve n so, the immigration jud g e ’s c on c lus ion mus t be su pp or te d by sp e c if

ic re a so ns and mus t be ba se d u po n is su e s th a t g o to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s cla im. I n other wor ds, if discrepa ncies cannot be viewed a s attempts by the applica

nt to enhance his claims of perse cution, they have no be aringon cre dibilit y . ” Chen v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 468, 472 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citations, altera tions, and quotation marks omitted). Be shkenadze c hara cte r iz e s th e p e n u lt im a tep a ragraph of

the I J ’s ora l decision as “a cre scendo of ambi va le nc e .” I n th a t pa ra g ra ph , th e I J state d a s f

oll ow s: To make cl ear

what my cre dibilit y

finding is, Ibasica lly

find responde nt is not c re dib le , th a t he is p ro ba

bly a c c ur a te in t

hat hi s mo the r w a s Jew ish and is a c c ur a te that his car w as stolen and use d in this pl ot. Ho we v er, othe rwise I find that re sp on de nt h a s p ro ba

bly in fl ate d a

nd e xpand e d h is s tor

y and a tte mpt e d to make it be tte r t ha n it re a lly is. So I do n’ t th ink

tha t th e wh ole sto ry is ne c e ssa ri ly fr a ud ule nt; pa rt s o f i t are pr ob a

bly tr ue . B ut r e sp on de nt c an’ t be de pe nd e d u po n for an a c c ur a te rendition of the f

acts. The ref

ore, w ith the cave ats stated above , Ifind that he is not cre dible. We fail to g lean a

ny ambivalenc e in these words. I f any thing, they

clar ify the I J ’s position that the bulk of Be shkenadze’s te stimony was “basic ally ” not cr edible, and that only the two “c aveats” wer eNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 7 - believable
. Not surprising ly , the caveats were the only two fac ts corrobor ated by the documenta

ry
e vid e nc e that B e sh ke na dze su bmi tte d in

su pport of his a pp lic a tio n. Th e I J, mor e ov e r, e xplic itl y noted that his acc eptanc e of the m was pure ly the re sult o f t his corrobor ation. Reg arding Be shkenadze’s a lleg ed Jewish identity , which the I J deeme d to be otherwise “inher ently unlikel[ y ],” the I J cited “a

birth cer tificate that say s his mother has J ewish nationalit y .” Simi larly , with reg ard to Be shkenadze’s a lleg ation that his car wa s u sed by Tedviashvili in 1994 to carr y out the latter’s
unsucce ssful murderous plot, the I J acc epted the a lleg ation as true only “bec ause it is corr oborate d” by a ne ws pa pe r a rt ic le . Si mpl y

be c a us e the I J found

tw o c or ro bo rate d a lle g a tio ns cred ibl e ha rd ly rende rs the entire ty

of his cre dibilit y

analy sis ambivalent, as B eshkena dze contends. B e sh ke na dze a lso fai ls to ment ion the op e nin g pa

ra g ra phof the I J’s c re dib ili ty

ana ly sis , wh ic h pr ov ide s a dd iti on a l c on te xt f or the e xce rp t qu ote d a bo ve . Th e re , the I J ex pl ic itl y acknow ledg ed that “in most ca ses the truth i s somewher e in betwe en” c ompletely cre dible and complete ly

in c r e d ib le , b u t t

h e nn o te d

th a t “ [t ]h e r e c e rta in ly

ar e r e a s o n s to f

in d [B e s h k e n a d ze]
c omp le te ly

inc re dib le .” I n oth e r wo rd s, a lth ou g h c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns ty

pic a lly pr e se nt c los e qu e sti on s, B e sh ke na dze ’s c re dib ili ty , in the I J’s o pin ion , d id n ot. Whe the r t he I J’s c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n w a s ju sti fi e d b y “ sp e c if ic re a so ns ,” of

c ours e , is a sepa rate qu es t i on from whe ther the c redibility deter mination was ambivalent. B ut the inconsistencies c ited by

the I J do in fac t “g o to the hear t of [Beshkena dze’s] cla im.” Chen , 447 F.3d at 472. For emost among these wa s Be shkenadze’s f ailure to mention either

the 1994 car

incident with Tedviashvili or the subseque nt “sl av e labor” at Siprioni’s mineral-w ater plant in his ini tial
a sylum a pp lic a tio n. B oth

of the se e pis od e s we re the heart of B eshkena dze’s claim. The I J also citedNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 8 - the inconsistency

betwee n Be shkenadze’s a lleg ation of “a nti-Semiti c-inspire d profe ssional dis c ri min a tio n” and

his un dis pute d o wn e rs hip of va ri ou s f or ms of pr op e rt

y a s w e ll a s a

g ra du a te de g re e in hy dro geolo g y . F ina lly , th e I J note d th e te ns ion be tw e e n B e sh ke na dze ’s c la im t o a nti

Se mit ic vic tim izatio n an d his tho ro ug hly Chr ist ian ort ho do x lif e sty le . Be sh ke na dze ’s Jew ishne ss, as noted a bove, wa s the threa d that tied his alleg ed “c y cles” of per secution tog ether
. I n li g ht o f t

he se inconsist e nc ie s r e lie d u po n b y the I J, we ho ld t

hat th e a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination does not constitute rever sible err or. The e vidence in the rec ord simply does not compel the c onclusion that Be shkenadze wa s in fact c redible. See M arku , 380 F.3d at 986. 2. Ev e n i

f th eI J e rr e d in hi s c r e d ib il it y d e te r min a tio n, s ub s ta nt

ia l e vidence supports the IJ’s alternati ve conclusion that B eshkenadze was not ent itled to a sy lum Adjudicatinga re quest for a sy lum involves a two-step inquiry : “(1) wh et h er t he applica nt qu a lif ie s a s a re fu g e e a s d e fi ne d in [8 U.S. C.] § 11 01 (a )( 42 )( A) , a nd (2 ) whe the r t

he a pp lic ant m e ri ts a fa vorable exercise of

discretion by the Attorney Gene ral.” Mi k

ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (c itation and quotation marks omitted). Wit h respe ct to the first is s u e, the term “re fug ee” is defined by

fede ral lawas any person who is outsi de any country of such pe rson’s nationality or, in the ca se of a pe rs on havin g no natio na lity , is outsi de any c ountr y in which such

pe rs on la st habitually resided, a

nd who i s u n able or unwilling to retur n to, and is unable or unwilli n g t o avail himself or he rself of the protec tion of, that country beca use of perse cutio n o r a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on account of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (A).No. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 9 - “The asylum applicant bea rs t he burden of establishi ng that he or she qualifies as a ref ug ee ‘either beca use he or she has suff

ere d past perse cution or because he or she has a well-founde d fea

r of future perse cution.’” O u d a v . I NS , 32 4 F .3 d 4 45 , 4 51 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) (q uo tin g 8 C. F .R. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 ( b ) )
. O n c e th e a p p li c an t s h o w s th a t h e o r s h e h a s s u f f e r e d f r o m p a s t p e r s ecution, the applicant is pre sumed to have a well-founde d fea

r of f u t u re p erse cution. Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 3 8 9 (q u o t i n g 8 C
. F. R
. § 2 0 8
. 1 3 (b )( 1 )( i ))
. T h i s p r e s u mp t i o nca nb e r eb u t t ed“o n l y t h ro u gh
e sta bli sh ingby

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that sinc e the pe rs e c uti on oc c ur re d, c on dit ion s in the a pp lic ant’ s c ountr

y ‘h ave c ha

ng e d to such an ex ten t th a t th e a pp lic ant n o lo ng e r h a s a well-founde d fea

r of be ing pe rsec uted if he w ere to return.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). I n th e pr e se nt ca se , af

te r co nc lud ing that Be sh ke na dze wa s not cr e dib le , th e I J alt e rn a tiv e ly deter mined that, even if Be shkenadze we re f ound to be cr edible, he w as still ineligible for a sylum becau s e h e h ad fa i l ed to prove that his fear of future perse cution was “ on acc ount of any of the fac tors of the Act.” (The I J had pre viously deter mined that Be shkenadze ha d not been “ subjected to past perse cution as that term is define d in a sylum law .”) Specifica lly , the I J deter mined that “[t] he situation with t he district attorne y [S iprioni] is only

remotely connec ted to respond en t b eing par t J ewish.” This de termination ec hoed the I J ’s earlier conc lusion that Beshke nadze’s fe ar of perse cution by

Siprioni, as an initial matter, was not objectively well-founde d: Re sp on de nt m ay

or may no t ha ve a su bje c tiv e be lie f t

hat Sip ri on i w ish e s to do him i nn o w t h a th e ’ s n o tn e e d e d t o r unth e w a t e r

p l an t
. H o w e v e r , l o o k e d

a to b j e c t i v e l y, the re do e s n ot a

pp e ar t o b e the sli g hte st r e a so n w hy Sip ri on i w ou ld b e int e re ste d in re sp on de nt, or

why any law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r w ou ld b e int e re ste d in re sp on de nt, and that fa ct is clea

rly broug h t o u t b y

the fa ct that Interpol re quested infor mation from the Ge org ian offic ials as to whether responde nt w as wa nted for a ny kind of a crime a nd appar ently

he is not. Certainly , if he we re w anted f or conspira cy

to kill t heNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 10 - President, eve n a for

mer Preside nt at this point , that answe r would n o t have be en g iven and Georg ia would probably be requesting his extradition now which they are no t. Be shkenadze misses the point whe n he argues that this de termination by the I J constituted
a n e r r o n e o u s “ b a cktra ck” a

nd “ qualification o f t h e c re d i b i l i ty o f P et i t i o n er ’s we l l -f

o un d eds u bjective fea r of pe rsec ution.” (Emphasis in orig inal.) As this court re cently reiter ate d , “[ w] h et h er a n applicant e stablishes a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution is measure d by a subjec tive and an objective standa

rd.” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F.3d 390, 396 (6th Cir. 2006) (empha sis a dded). The I J clea rly deter mine d tha t Be shkenadze ha d failed to satisfy the objective c omponent of this standard. I f t his was a “qualific ation,” in other words, it was a qualification require d by law. B eshkena dze’s ins ist e nc e tha

t his cla im “ is b a se d o n h is s ub je c tiv e be lie f” of

pe rs e c uti on

by Sip ri on i is pr e c ise ly the pr ob le m. We do not fi nd the I J’s an a ly sis to be e rr on e ou s, muc h le ss l a c kin g e vid e nti ary su pp or t. B. Withhol din g of rem oval and relief und er t he CAT Be shkenadze’ s ap p l i cation for asylum also contained a reque st for the withholding of
re mov a l and pro tec tio n und e r t he CA T. An

a pp lic ant s e e kin g the wi thh old ingof re mov a l “ mus t show a ‘c lear

probability

of per secu tion,’ which is a stricter standard tha

n the ‘we ll-founded f

ear ’ standard that applies with respe ct to applications for asylum.” Al i , 3 6 6 F
. 3 d

at 4 1 1 (c i t i n g INS v. Ste v ic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984))
. Be cause substantial evidenc e supports the I J ’s conc lusion that Be shkenadze is not elig ible for a sy lum, he “ca nnot satisfy

the m o re s t ri n g ent standar d for withholding of de portation.” Se e Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 355 F.3d 615, 625 ( 6th Cir. 2004). To obtain relief

under the CAT, Be shkenadze must show that he would more likely than not be subjected to tor

ture afte r beingdeporte d to Russi a. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2) ( placingon theNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 11 - applicant seeking relief under the CAT the burden of proving “that it is more likely than not that he
or sh e wo uld

be tor tur e d if re mov e d to the pr op os e d c ountr y of re mov a l” ); Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 951 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (re citing the same standa rd). The “m o re l i k el y than not” burde n of proof is similarly

highe r than the “ well-founde d fea r” bur d en required to establish a cla im for asylum, so t h at substantial evidence also supports the re jection by

the I J of B eshkena dze’s CAT claim. See E lezaj v. Gonzales , 163 F. App’ x 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that if an a pplicant fails t o meet the standard for asy lum, he “ a fo rti or i ” fails to me et the re quirements for withholding of re moval and re lief under the CAT). C. Due pr oc e ss c lai m Be shkenadze’s f

inal argument challeng es the B I A’s summary aff irma n c e o f th e I J’s dec ision. Specifica lly , he argues that the “novel fac tual situation” prese nted by his case w arr anted r eview “ by a thre e-me mber pa

nel of the B oard pur suant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (6).” He a lso contends that the BIA must provide an indepe ndent g round for aff irmance “in a case in which the re asoning proff ere d by the I J is faulty .” The c ore of

Be shkenadze’s argument—namely , that the sing le-judg e, summary -af firmanc e proce dure itself violates his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment—is squarely fore closed by this circuit’s pre cede nt in De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 730 (6th Cir. 2003) , wher e t h e court reje cted a n identical ar g ument. The Denk o decision wa s expl aine d in this court’s more re cent opinion in Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 526- 27 (6th Cir. 2006): B e c a us e De nk o h a d f

a ile d to pr ovide t ang ibl e e vid e nc e that th e B I A n e g le c te d to c on du c t a pr op e r r e vie w p ri or

to i ssu ingits summa

ry op ini on , th is c ourt

re fu se d to assume “a

compl et e break-down in the sy stem.” [ Denk o , 3 5 1 F
. 3 d ] a t7 2 8

- 2 9
. ItNo. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 12 - further deter mined that no due proc ess violation r esulted from the B I A’s af firmanc e of the I J without issuin g an opinion. Id. at 730. Acc ording to Denk o , “the summary -af

firmanc e-w ithout-opinion rule rende rs the I J ’s dec ision the final ag ency order , and we revie w that decision. Thus, Denko rec eives the ‘full and f air’ r eview that she is entitled to rec eive.” Id. B e sh ke na dze ins ist s, ho wever, th a t Denk o mus t be re a d in

lig ht o f t his c ourt ’s op ini on

in Gj y zi v . A sh c ro

ft , 386 F.3d 710 ( 6th Cir. 2004), where t h e p et i t ioner succ essfully challeng ed the BIA’s summary -af

firman ce p ro cedur e. B ut as the g overnme nt corre ctly observe s, the proce dural posture at issue in Gj

y zi was cate g orica lly differ ent from that at issue in the present c ase. The re, the B I A’ s summa

ry op ini on wa s in c on sis te nt i n th a t it a ffirm ed th e I J’s d e c isi on de sp ite e xplic itl y reje cting the I J ’s dispositive credibility finding
. Id. a t 71 5- 16 . H e re , b y c on tr a st, the B I A e xplic itl y adopted the I J’s fa c tua l fin din g s and c on c lus ion s o f l aw, c on c lud ingtha t th e fo rm e r w e re no t c le arl y
err oneous. B eshkena dze’s relianc e on Gj y zi , there fore , is mispl ace d. To be s u r e , B e s h k e n a d ze is c o r r e c t i nn o ti n g th a t “ th e a

p p li c a ti o no f

p r e c e d e n t t o a

n ovel fa c tua l si tuatio n” i s o n e o f t h e s t a t uto ri ly re c og nize d e xce pti on s to the summa ry -a ff ir manc e -w ith outopinion procedur e. See 8 C. F .R. § 1 00 3. 1( e)( 4) (i )( A) . So , to o, is “ the ne e d to re vie w a c le arl y
err oneous fa ctual dete rmination by an immigr ation judge .” Id. § 1003.1(e) (6)( v). B u t the latter exception does not apply wher e, as here , the BIA expli citly deter mines that the I J ’s finding s of fa ct
wer e not clea

rly err oneous. And in not a s s i g n i n g B e s h k e n a d z e ’ s c a s e t o a th r e e - j u d g e p an e l , th e B IA
nece ssarily , albeit implicitly , deter mined that his case did not pre sent a “ novel fa ctual situation.” See id. § 1003.1(e) (4)( i) (notingthat a sing le B I A j udg e “shall aff irm” t he I J ’s decision without opinion “if the B oard me mber de termines,” am o n g other thing s, that “[t] he issues on appe al . . . do not involve the application of prec edent to a nove l fac tual situation”).No. 06-3558

Beshke nadze v. G onzales

- 13 - The B I A, which r eviews e x ponentially more immigration c ases than this court, is far be tter positioned than we are to deter mine what constit utes a “novel” set of facts. See D enko , 351 F.3d at 730 n.10 (“[A]dmi nistrative ag encie s and administrators will be familiar with the industries which t h ey re gu l at e a n d

wi l l b e i na b et t er

p o s i t i o nth an fe d er al c o u rt s o r C o n gre s s i t s el f t o d es i gn proce dural rule s adapte d to the peculiar ities of the industry and the tasks of the ag ency

involved.” (q u o t i n g Vermont Y

anke e N u cl ea r Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 435 U.S. 519, 52 5 ( 19 78 )) ). B e sh ke na dze ’s du e pr oc e ss a rgume nt i s a c c or din g ly

wi tho ut m e ri t.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of t he reasons set forth above , we DENY th e p e ti ti o nf o r r e v ie w f il e d b y B e s h k e n a d ze and his wife.