FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 24, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 61 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. A0 97 -1 93 -3 43 MIN THIHA TUN, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st24 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, MAR CUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi n Th ih a Tun pe ti ti on s u s fo r rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s(“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C . §§ 11 58 , 12 31 , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Ot he r Cru el , Inh um an orDegr ad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). On ap pe al , he a rg ue s t ha t: (1) th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was erro ne ou s; (2) th e IJ vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts at the rem ov al he ari ng ; an d (3 ) th e IJ an d B IA erre d i n d en y in g h is cla im forCAT rel ie f. Afterrev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we DENY th e p et it io n. I. BACK GROUND Tun , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof B urm a (n ow kno wn as th e Uni on of M y an m ar), 1 fil edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f in Marc h 20 03 , all eg in g b ot h p as t p ers ecu ti on an d awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n a ndm em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up . Tun st at edin hi s ap pl ic at io n t ha t h is m ot he r an d fa th er h adbe enm em be rs of t he Nati on al Leag ue forDem oc racy (“ NLD”) si nc e 1 98 8. He s ta te d t ha t al th ou gh th e NLD was le ga l, i ts m em

be rs were “ supp res se d,” an d tha t b ot h h is paren ts were fir edfro m

th ei r job s b ecau se of t he ir p ol it ic al act iv it ie s. He s ta te d t ha t h is pa ren ts In 1989, the B urmese military g overnme nt chang ed the c ountry ’s name to “ Myanmar .” 1 Howeve r, bec ause the country is refe rre d to as “B urma” in the proce eding s below, we ref er to Tun’s native c ountry

as “B urma” rathe r than “ Myanmar .” 2were, h owe ve r, ab le to “ co nt inue th ei r m em be rs hi p a s t own sh ip lea de rs .” Tun hi m se lf b ecame po li ti cal ly acti ve when he joi ne d t he All Bu rm a Stud en t Dem oc rat ic Fro nt(“ ABSDF”) whi le he was i n h ig h s ch oo l i n the to wns hi p o f Yam ethi n. Hi s dut ie s i nc lu de d d is tri bu ti ng pro -d em oc racy leafl et s an d h an gi ng po st ers at t he sch oo l, wh ic h re su lt edin hi s b ei ng “bl ackli st ed ” an d “ watc he d” by th e p ol ic e. His fathe r se nthi m to Man da la y

to fin is h h is educ at io n a nd , aft er pa ss in g h is fin al ex am s i n 1 99 3, h e en ro ll edat M ei k Th i Lar Gov ern m en t 2 Tech ni cal Ins ti tu te . Once t he re, h e b ecame a “ se cretlea de r” o f a t en -m em be r ABSDF ce ll an d was res po ns ib le fordi ss em in at in g p ro pa ga nd a, in cl ud in g p ro de m oc racy pam

ph le ts . Tunst at edth athe was a rres te d fo r di st rib ut in g thi s li te ratur e, de ta in edat the lo cal m il it ary qu art ers , andin te rro ga te d fo r te n d ay s. Afte r si gn in g apape r ag reei ng to “ st ay away fro m po li ti cal m ov em en ts ,” he was rel eas ed . Alth ou gh he was e xp el le d fr om hi s d orm it ory , he was pe rm it te d t o co nt in ue tak in g c la ss es as ada y stud en t. Afte r gr adua ti ng fro m

th e Me ikThi Lar Gov ern m en t Tec hn ic al Ins ti tu te in 19 96 , Tunwas a ss ig ne d t o wo rkas a n app ren ti ce ata sh ip y ard . Arou ndth atti m e, Tun ’s two un cl es , who ha d g on e to Thai la ndin 19 88 , returne d t o B urm a se cret ly

Meik Thi L ar is re fer

red to e lsewher e in the re cord a s “Mekthilar” or “Me iktila.” See id. 2 at 143, 356, 363. 3an d s tarte d a n a nt i-g ov ern m en t m ov em en t. Tun joi ne d t he ir m ov em en t an d a ls o

worke d fo r th e NLD. As a res ul t o f hi s i nv ol ve m en t wi th th e NLD, he was arre st eda se co ndti m e an d s en t t o am il it ary pr is on , wher e h e rem ai ne d fo r se ve n m on th s an d was in te rro ga te d “ wit h m an y ki nd s o f to rtu res .” He in di cat edth athi s un cl es ha d b een arre st edtwo da y s b efo re h is own arre st , andth atth ey were “ st il l in jail [in Bu rm a] for s om e cri m e.” Tun furth er al le ge d t ha t upo n b ei ng rel eas ed , he was barredfro m att en di ng th e Yan go n Ins ti tu te of Tec hn ol og y forhi s h ig he r educ at io n o n a cco un t o f hi s 3 po li ti cal act iv is m . This m ean t tha t h e wou ldne ve r be ab le to ob ta in a un iv ers it y de gr ee an d wo ul d t he refo re h av e “ no m or e fu tu re.” Co nc ern edforTun ’s fat e if he rem ai ne d i n B urm a, an d fe ari ng he wou ldbe im pr is on edforhi s p ol it ic al act iv it ie s, Tun ’s par en ts bo ug hthi m a worki ng pe rm itan d p as sp ort an d, o n 7 Feb ru ary 19 98 , se nthi m ab ro adas asai lo r. Tunul ti m at el y en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wh enth e sh ip he was o n a rri ve d a t a p ort i n Tam pain May 200 2, m or e th anfou r y ears aft er he fle d B urm a. Duri ng th e ti m e b etweenhi s l eav in g B urm a an d a rri vi ng in th e Uni te d S ta te s, h e le arn edfro m hi s p aren ts th atm il it ary in te ll ig en ce o ffi cers

“ oc cas io na ll y

vi si te d a ndask edab ou t [h im ]. ” He in di cat edth atbe cau se he was Yang on is the city

formerly named Rang oon. The re cord be low ref ers pr edominantly

to 3 Rang oon, instead of Ya

ng on. 4“ st il l i n [s ic ] th e h oo k,” he “ ha d n o c ho ic e b utto try to s ta y in th is free lan d t o b e away fro m

Bu rm es e m il it ary pr is on s.” InMay 200 3, t he Department o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y (“ DHS”) s erv edTun wit h aNot ic e to App ear ( “NTA”), ch arg in g h im with re m ov ab il it y

un de r INA § 2 12 (a)( 6) (A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ), as anali enpre se ntinth e Uni te d St at es witho utha vi ng be enadm it te d o r pa ro le d. Atanin it ia l h eari ng , Tun ap pe aredwith c ou ns el , adm it te d t he all eg at io ns in th e NTA, andco nc ed ed rem ov ab il it y . Prio r to th e rem ov al he ari ng , Tunsubm it te d s ev eral do cu m en ts in supp ort o f hi s cl ai m s fo r rel ie f, in cl ud in g t he 20 04 an d 2 00 5 U.S. St at e Dep artm en t Co un try Repo rts on Bu rm a, bo th of wh ic h d et ai le d t he go ve rn m en t’s reco rdof t ortu re, v io le nc e, an d p ol it ic al op pr es si on . Alth ou gh a nu m be r of th e in ci de nt s re po rte d o ccu rredin Ran go on , nei th er Yam ethi n n orMek th il ar were sp eci fic al ly m en ti on ed . In ad di ti on to th e co un try repo rts , Tunals o s ub m it te d: (1) a se rie s o f pr es s re le as es an d s ta te m en ts fro m th e U.S. Sta te Depa rtment r eg ard in g hu m anrig ht s p ract ic es in Burm a; (2) anin te rn etpe ti ti on forth e rel eas e o f po li ti cal pr is on ers in Bu rm a; (3) a le tt er fro m Aun g Zayy a co nf

irming Tun ’s parti ci pa ti on in di ss id en t ac ti vi ti es an d h is res ul ta ntim pr is on m en t; (4) a le tt er fro m TinW in The invo uc hi ng forTun ’s po li ti cal act iv is m whi le in th e Uni te d S ta te s; (5) a le tt er fro m Tun ’s un cl e ex pl ai ni ng th atth e g ov ern m en t ce ns or s t he m ai l an d warni ng 5Tun th athe wou ldbe arre st edif h e returne d h om e; (6) a le tt er fro m Tun ’s fathe r de ta il in g g ov ern m en t ce ns or sh ip an d o pp res si on ; an d (7 ) a s eri es of p ho to gr ap hs an d n ews art ic le s re po rti ng on pro te st s i n B urm a an d o pp res si on by the go ve rn m en t. W it h t he aidof atra ns la to r, Tun tes ti fie d a t h is rem ov al he ari ng th athi s m ot he r an d fa th er were act iv e m em be rs of t he NLD andha d o pp os edth e ru li ng m il it ary go ve rn m en t. His fathe r ha d b een a ba nkm an ag er an d h is m ot he r a nur se , bu t the y bo th were t erm in at edfro m th ei r job s b ecau se of t he ir p ol it ic al act iv it y . Tun ’s two un cl es were al so m em be rs of t he NLD andwere fo rcedto fle e th e co un try from

19 88 to 19 96 onacco un t o f th ei r po li ti cal act iv ity . Tunbe cam e po li ti cal ly acti ve as ahi gh sch oo l s tu de nt , dra win g p ol it ic al cart oo ns an d di st rib ut in g p ro -d em oc racy lit eratur e. Tun tes ti fie d t ha t h is fir sten co un te r wit h m il it ary po li ce was in Aug us t 19 94 , when he was a tt en di ng tec hn ic al sch oo l i n M ekth il ar an d l ead in g aten m em be r ABSDF g ro up . Tunan d t he ot he rs inth e g ro up were d et ai ne d a t a m il it ary pr is on forten day s, dur in g wh ic h t im e th ey were i nt erro ga te d a ndy el le d at , bu t n otph y si cal ly harm ed . Upo n Tu n’s re le as e, th e g ov ern m en t cu t h is educ at io na l s ti pe ndan d fo rcedhi m to si gna de cl arat io n t ha t h e wou ldno t pa rti ci pa te in po li ti cal act iv it ie s. 6Tun furth er t es ti fie d t ha t af te r he fin is he d h is stud ie s atth e te ch ni cal in st itut e in June 19 96 , he wo rk edas a n i nt ern forth ree m on th s ata sh ip y ard . In Aug us t o f th aty ear, h e reu ni te d wi th th e res t o f th e n in e ABSDF g ro up m em be rs an d h is two un cl es in Ran go on to pro te stth e g ov ern m en t an d c omm em or at e th e an ni ve rs ary of

th e fo un di ng of t he NLD. Tun st at edth athi s unc le s h adfle d t o t he Tha il an d/ Bu rm a b or de r in19 88 be cau se th e au th or it ie s wer e try in g t o a rres t h im , an d re m ai ne d t he re unt il 19 96 , whenth ey returne d s ecre tl y

to Bu rm a. The IJ th en

4 as ke d Tu n wh y

hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n d idno t i nd ic at e th athe ev er l iv edin Ran go on bu t i ns te adst at edon ly tha t h e li ve d i n Yam ethi n fr om ch il dh oo d u nt il he le ft B urm a in 19 98 . Tunexpl ai ne d t ha t h e d idno t u nd ers ta ndho w to fil l o utth e as y lu m ap pl ic at io n p ro pe rly, pro m pt in g t he IJ t o re pl y , “ W el l, thi s i s wh y it ’s so di ffi cu ltto fol lo w y ou r st ory . I do n’t kno w wher e y ouare i n a ll of t he se di ffer en t ti m es . So n ow i t’s Au gu st19 96 an d youan d a ll of you r ni ne fri en ds an d you r two un cl es all li ve in Ran go on Cit y . Is t ha t co rrec t? ” Tun an swe redaffi rm at iv el y an d ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e li ve d wi thhi s au ntin Ran go onbu t d idno t wo rkbe cau se al th ou gh he ha d c om

pl et edhi s i nt ern sh ip , he l ack edth e requi si te lev el of

There was some c onfusion in Tun’s testimony reg ardingwhen his uncle s fled B urma. 4 Tun first stated that “ the year 1998 was the year

that my two uncles we nt to Burma/Tha iland and 1996 was the year

they came back to B urma.” I d. at 147. When the I J pointed out that this “[didn’t] make a

ny sense,”Tun clarified that he me ant that his uncles fle d in 1988, not 1998. I d. at 148. 7educ at io n t o o bt ai n e m pl oym en t. He b el ie ve d tha t the tec hn ic al in st itut e ref us ed to is su e h im

th e certi fic at e h e n eed edin ord er t o c on ti nu e h is stud ie s atth e un iv ers it y

be cau se of p as t p ol it ic al act iv it ie s. Th e IJ th enask edTunth e fo ll owi ng qu es ti on s: IJ : W el l, I tho ug hty ousai d yougra du at edan d youco m pl et edth e ap pr en ti ce wo rk . I do n’t u nd ers tand . Tun : So I fin is he d o nl y

a di pl om a certi fic at e. IJ : Andwhatwere y outrying to ge t? Tun : So I was t ry in g t o g etothe r di pl om as an d t he n wh il e worki ng , so I was t ry in g t o g etm or e educ at io n. IJ : Do you h av e an y

do cu m en ts to sh ow t ha t you wer e tu rn ed do wn fo r th is cert ifi cat e? Tun : No, s ir. IJ : Wha t m ak es y outh in k t he y lo ok edin to y ou r ba ck gr ou ndan d fo un d s om ethi ng wron g wi th y ou r ba ck gr ou nd ? Tun : I th in k t he y

lo ok edba ckat the ti m e th atI st ic k p os te r on th e wall . IJ : Wha t k in d o f gr ad es di d youge t atth is in st itut e? Tun : So with a ll th ree s ub jects , I go t o ve r ei gh ty. IJ : . . . . W el l, d idy oufai l s om e o f y ou r co ur se s? Tun : No, I d idno t p as s ev erythi ng . IJ : So th eny oudi dn ’t gra du at e? Tun : So I go t the th ree years d ip lo m a, bu t I d idno t g etth e d eg ree. IJ : So ho w m an y

cla ss es di d youfai l? Tun : I di d n otfai l, s ir. IJ : . . . G o a he ad , Mr. Dru ss . I di dn ’t m ean to tak e o ve r. I jus t . . . wasn ’t un de rs ta nd in g wh atwas g oi ng on th ere. Tun in di cat edth athe di d app ly to the un iv ers it y in ord er t o c on ti nu e h is stud ie s bu t was tu rn eddo wn an d t ha t the un iv ers it y di d n ottel l h im

why itha d d en ie d h is ap pl ic at io n fo r ad m is si on . Tunsu rm is edth athe ha d b eenreject eddu e to hi s 8po li ti cal op in io n b ecau se ot he r po li ti cal ly acti ve pe rs on s h e kne w, in cl ud in g h is

un cl es , hadha d “ th e sa m e p ro bl em s.” Tun tes ti fie d a dd it io na ll y on di rectex am in at io n t ha t o n 2 4 S ep te m be r 19 96 , he di st rib ut edlea fle ts advi si ng pe op le no t t o s up po rt t he m il it ary go ve rn m en t an d ur gi ng th em

to att en d t he NLD ann iv ers ary cel eb rat io n a s wel l as pa m ph le ts co nt ai ni ng in fo rm at io n abo utde m oc racy in g en eral an d t he rig ht s o f th e p eo pl e. The fol lo win g n ig ht , two m il it ary in te ll ig en ce o ffi cers cam e to hi s au nt ’s ho us e an d a rres te d h im . They bl in df ol de d Tu n andto okhi m

away in a tr uc k. As so on as he go t i n t he tru ck , on e o f th e o ffi cers hi t Tu n i n h is ba ckwith t he bu ttof arif le whi le th e o th er h ithi m

in hi s kne e wit h ast ic k. Whenth e truc k c am e to a st op , th ey pu sh edTunou t o f th e truc k a ndco nt in ue d t o k ic k h im in hi s kne e as he lay ha nd cu ffedon th e g ro un d. Th e o ffi cers dra gg edTunin to a bu il di ng , pu t h im in a ch ai r, rem ov edhi s h an dc uf fs , andti edhi s h an ds be hi ndhi s b ack . Whi le sh in in g a fla sh li gh t i n h is ey es , th ey ask edhi m

qu es ti on s ab ou t h is po li ti cal act iv it ie s, sp eci fic al ly, whe re h e g otth e le afl et s, wh y he was d is tri bu ti ng th em , andwhy he was act in g o utag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t. Du rin g t he in te rro ga ti on , whi ch las te d ov er an ho ur , th e o ffi cers hi t Tu n o n t he ba ckof h is he adwith ast ic k a ndki ck ed hi m in th e kne es with t he ir b oo ts . Whe n Tu n t ol d t he m th athe was a dv oc at in g fo r de m oc racy, the y

hi t h im so ha rdhe lo stco ns ci ou sn es s. Th e o ffi cers co nt in ue d t o

9to rtu re Tun t he ne xtda y , m ak in g h im crawl on roc ks an d “

jum p l ik e a fro g” with hi s h an ds be hi ndhi s b ack , andrefu se d t o g iv e h im foo d a ndwate r fo r ex te nd ed pe rio ds of t im e. Tuntes ti fie d t ha t thi s wen t o n c on ti nu ou sl y for on e week , bu t tha t th e b eat in gs de crea se d a fte r th e fi rs t m on th an d c eas edby the th irdm on th . Tun rem ai ne d a t the de te nt io n fa ci li ty for s ev enm on th s. Onco nd it io n o f be in g rel eas ed , Tunwas fo rcedto si gn anag reem en t n otto pa rti ci pa te inan y an ti go ve rn m en t g ro up s. Fo ll owi ng hi s re le as e, Tun st ay edat h is pa ren ts ’ ho us e fo r two m on th s an d th enreturne d t o R an go on . His f athe r co nt act edso m eo ne who “ he lp [ed ] pe op le to ge t o utof B urm a” an d p ai d t ha t p ers on to ge t Tu n aworkpe rm it , whi ch wou ld al lo w Tunto “ work o n t he bo at .” Tunst at edth athe ha d b een ab le to lea ve Bu rm a be cau se “ ev erythi ng ha d b eenarra ng edby the bro ke r,” wh o s po ke to th e b or de r of fic ers an d l edTunth ro ug h t he go ve rn m en t ch eckpo in ts . Whe n a sk edby the IJ why he d idno t ap pl y

forasylu m

in an y of t he sev eral ot he r co un tri es th ro ug h whi chth e sh ip pa ss edbe fo re arriv in g i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, Tu n s ta te d t ha t h e fear edth athe wou ldbe arre st edan d s en t b ackto Burm a if he ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m in th os e co un tri es . He to ldth e IJ th atif h e returne d t o B urm a, “ [h e] woul d s uf fer m or e se rio us to rtu re tha n [h e] suf fere d b efo re,” an d t ha t “ [h is ] li fe wo ul d b e en de d in th e p ris on .” Whe n a sk edwhy he be li ev edth at , Tunto ldth e IJ th athe ha d 10le arn edfro m hi s fa th er an d u nc le s t ha t Bu rm es e au th or it ie s ro ut in el y cam e to Tun ’s par en ts ’ ho m e lo ok in g fo r hi m an d h adpl aced“ m or e res tri ct io n[ s] on [hi s] rel at iv es .” On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Tu n t es ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t m en ti on th athe ha d be ento rtu reddu rin g h is asylum in te rv ie w bec au se he was n otdi rect ly ask edab ou t to rtu re an d, due to hi s l im it edEng li sh , he d idno t tho ro ug hl y un de rs ta ndth e qu es ti on . Tunde ni edth athe co ul d s afel y rel oc at e to an ot he r pa rt o f Bu rm a, ev en if h e st op pe d p art ic ip at in g i n p ol it ic al act iv it ie s, b ecau se he ha d a“bl ackm arkin [h is ] pa st ,” an d t he au th or it ie s “ wou ldfin d s om e o ccas io ns or . . . so m e op po rtu ni ti es to arre st[hi m ]. ” At the clo se of t he go ve rn m en t’s cr os s- ex am in at io n, t he IJ que st io ne d Tu n atlen gt h. Th e IJ fir stask edTunwhy th e Bu rm es e g ov ern m en t wo ul d g iv e h im a pa ss po rt a ndot he r do cu m en ts ne ces sa ry to ex itth e co un try if itwant edto pe rs ecu te hi m . Tunres po nd edth atth e g ov ern m en t was “ ve ry happ y ” to “ ge t ri d of ” p ro -d em oc racy adv oc at es li ke hi m se lf wh o o pp os edth e curren t re gi m e. Bes id es , Tuntes ti fie d, t he re were alwa y s co rruptgo ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s wh o c ou ld be bri be d t o a ss is t p ers on s l ik e Tunin lea vi ng th e co un try. W he n t he IJ a sk edTun why the go ve rn m en t wo ul d n otwanthi m to ob ta in asylu m

in th e Uni te d S ta te s i f it was “happ y

to ge t ri d o f pe op le li ke [hi m ], ” Tunres po nd edth atwhi le itwas tru e 11th e g ov ern m en t wan te d t o g etridof p eo pl e li ke hi m , itals o was “ happ y to se e . . . tha t we ar e in tro ub le .” W it h re sp ectto Tun ’s cla im s t ha t h is pa ren ts were p ol it ic al ly acti ve , th e IJ as ke d Tu n h ow t he y

co ul d b e “ to wns hi p l ead ers ,” as Tunha d s ta te d i n h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n, i f th ey

parti ci pa te d i n p ro m ot in g d em oc racy andop po se d t he mil it ary go ve rn m en t. Tun res po nd edth atth ey were n otpa rt o f th e o ffi ci al to wns hi p go ve rn m en t, b utwere l ead ers of t he NLD in Yam ethi n t own sh ip . The IJ als o as ke d Tu n wh y

he was p ers ecu te d m erel y forpa ss in g o utlea fle ts if h is pa ren ts were p erm it te d t o h ol d m on th ly N LD m eet in gs witho utpu ni sh m en t. Tun st at ed th athe was a rres te d b ecau se he pa ss edou t the lea fle ts in a cro wde d a rea, whi ch was no t p erm is si bl e atth atti m e, an d t ha t the go ve rn m en t d idno t i nt erfe re wi th hi s pa ren ts ’ NLD m eet in gs as l on g a s t he m eet in gs were p eace fu l an d the re were no de m on st rat or s o n the st reet s. Whe n a sk edab ou t h is un cl es , Tunto ldth e IJ th atbo th were arres te d i n 1 99 6 an d re le as edin19 99 . The IJ ask edTunto expl ai n wh y hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n st at edno t o nc e, bu t twice , th athi s u nc le s wer e st il l i n p ris on as o f 20 03 . Tun st at edth atitm

us t h av e b een a tr an sl at io n e rro r an d t ha t h e d idno t h av e th e or ig in al Burm es e tr an sl at io n o f hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. Th e IJth enqu es ti on ed Tun ag ai n re ga rd in g h is earl ie r te st im on y th athe was p recl ud edforpo li ti cal 12reas on s fr om co nt inui ng hi s educ at io n a t the un iv ers it y : IJ : Oka y , si r. Whe n you– Well , letm e as k you . Didy ougra du at e fro m th e g ov ern m en t t ech ni cal in st itut e in 19 96 ? Tun : . . . . Yes, s ir. I g otm y di pl om a certi fic at e. IJ : Andy ouco m

pl et edall of t he cla ss es th atwere re qu ire d fo r th at cert ifi cat e? Tun : Yes , si r. IJ : W el l, i f y ougo t tha t g radua ti on cert ifi cat e, why is i t tha t you di dn ’t go to th e u ni ve rs it y if you h ady ou r di pl om a certi fic at e? Tun : Bec au se th ey

wou ldno t al lo w m e to co nt in ue m y educ at io n. IJ : W el l, d idy oune edth is di pl om a certi fic at e to ge t i nt o t he ne xt le ve l atth e u ni ve rs it y ? Tun : Yes , si r. IJ : W el l, i f y ouha d t he di pl om a, th enwhy di dn ’t y oum ak e th e ap pl ic at io n t o g o t o t he un iv ers it y ? Tun : I di d app ly, si r, bu t I was de ni ed . IJ : Anddo y ouha ve a le tt er s ho win g t ha t you wer e d en ie d? Tun : No s ir, I was in fo rm edve rb al ly. IJ : . . . . W el l, thi s i s i nc on si st en t wi th whaty outes ti fie d t o b efo re, si r. Youtes ti fie d b efo re tha t ‘The i ns ti tu te di d n otgi ve m e a cert ifi cat e n eed edto go to th e uni ve rs it y .’ Youwenton to say, ‘I did n’t p as s ev erythi ng . I go t a t hr ee-year d ip lo m a, bu t n ota de gr ee.’ Tun : Yes , si r. I di d m en ti on th atI di d n otge t an y de gr ee. Bu t acco rd in g t o o ur , th e educ at io n s y st em of o ur co un try, the te rm in ol og y

th atwe us e th ere . . . is di ffer en t. IJ : W el l, i f y oune ed edth e certi fic at e, . . . andy ougo t the cert ifi cat e, I can ’t un de rs ta ndwhy th atcert ifi cat e was n’t acce pt ed . Tun : Let m e . . . exp la in , pl eas e. Becaus e in ou r sc ho ol , aft er we fin is h o ur hi gh sch oo l, we h av e to ha ve , go to th is tec hn ic al in st itut e to ge t o urcert ifi cat e. IJ : Yes . Andy oudi d g etth atcert ifi cat e I und ers ta nd . Tun : Yes , si r. I fin is he d my th ree years c ou rs e atth atin st itut e an d I go t v ery hi gh gra de an d i n fa ctI was qua li fie d t o jo in an othe r un iv ers it y , bu t the y

di d n otacce ptm

y ap pl ic at io n. 13IJ : W el l, wh y di d youtes ti fy

be fo re tha t you d id n’t p as s al l the co ur se s? Wha t co ur se s d idy ouhave to pa ss th aty oudi dn ’t pa ss ? Tun : Bec au se I di d n otsay so . At th atti m e, I sa idth atI fin is he d a ll th e cl as se s atth e ti m e. Tun in di cat edth athe co ul d n otob ta in do cum en ta ti on to pro ve th athe ap pl ie d fo r adm is si on to th e u ni ve rs it y inJu ly 199 6 b ecau se th e sc ho ol refu se d t o re le as e h is reco rd s, an d t ha t h e fi rs t l earn edth athe wou ldno t b e ab le to ge t h is de gr ee af te r he was re le as edfro m

hi s s ev en -m on th de te nt io n. Whenth e IJ po in te d o utth at Tun ha d s ta te d p rev io us ly tha t h e h adap pl ie d fo r an d was de ni edadm is si on to th e un iv ers it y

aft er h e fi ni sh edhi s ap pr en ti ces hi p, Tu n c la rif ie d t ha t wh il e h e d idlea rn atth atti m e th athe ha d b een de ni edadm is si on , he d idno t kno w “ th e rea l re as on ” fo r th e u ni ve rs it y ’s dec is io n. Itwas o nl y up on be in g re le as edfro m pri so n, wh en anoff ic er t ol d h im

th athe ha d b een de ni edadm is si onbe cau se of h is pa st act iv it ie s, tha t h e d is co ve redhe ha d b een ba rredfro m co nt in ui ng hi s educ at io n fo r po li ti cal reas on s. W it h re sp ectto hi s al le ga ti on s o f to rtu re, Tun to ldth e IJ th ata so ld ie r wit h so m e m ed ic al tra in in g s utur edth e wou nd s o n h is kn ees an d h e d idno t g o t o a do ct oraft er b ei ng rel eas edbe cau se by tha t t im e h is wound s h adhe al ed . Tun fu rth er t es ti fie d t ha t h e su ffer edso m e h eari ng lo ss as ares ul t o f be in g s tru ckso m an y ti m es on th e si de of h is he ad , bu t co ul d n otaffo rdm ed ic al tre at m en t ei th er 14in Bu rm a o r th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e IJ ask edTunho w he c ou ldaffo rdto tra ve l t o

New Yorkfor

pro te st s an d d on at e m on ey to pro -d em oc racy gro up s, b utco ul d n ot affo rdto see a do ct or . Tunin di cat edth athi s h eari ng pro bl em “ was no th in g se rio us ” an d t ha t h e d on at edm on ey to th e p ro -d em oc racy org an iz at io ns in Burm a be cau se itwas t he rig htth in g t o d o. Fi na ll y , th e IJ qu es ti on edTunab ou t the da te of t he fou nd in g o f th e NLD. Whe n Tu n s ta te d t ha t i t was 25 Sep te m be r, th e IJpo in te d o utth atTunha d t es ti fie d on di rectex am in at io n t ha t the an ni ve rs ary was on th e 2 4 S ep te m be r, an d h ad at ta ch edto th e rec or d apre ss rel eas e st at in g t ha t the an ni ve rs ary da te was 2 7 Sep te m be r. Tunwas u nabl e to ex pl ai n wh y th e p res s re le as e wou ldha ve be en m is ta ke n abo utth e d at e. The IJ d en ie d Tu n’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , and CAT rel ie f, fin di ng th atTun ’s tes ti m on y was “ no t s uf

fic ie nt ly det ai le d, co ns is te nt , orbe li ev ab le to pro vi de a pl au si bl e an d c oh eren t ac co un t o f th e b as is forhi s fe ars ” an d t hu s was in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh hi s el ig ib il it y forasylum , withh ol di ng of rem ov al , or C AT reli ef. The IJ f urth er fo un d tha t Tu n fa il edto in tro du ce ad equa te co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e o r do cu m en ta ti on an d t ha t s uc h e vi de nc e co ul d a ndsh ou ld ha ve be enpro vi de d b y

Tun . On ap pe al fro m

th e IJ ’s den ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n t o the BIA, Tun arg ue d t ha t

15th e IJ : (1 ) vi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts by aban do ni ng hi s ro le as ane utral an d

im pa rti al arb it er; (2) im

pr op erl y de m an de d d oc um en ta ry

ev id en ce tha t d idno t ex is t o r was im

po ss ib le to pro du ce; (3) im pr op erl y su gg es te d t ha t Tu n c ou ldreturn ho m e an d aba nd on po li ti cal act iv it y ; an d (4 ) sh ou ldha ve recu se d h im se lf f orbi as an d p reju di ce ag ai ns t Tu n. He co nc lu de d t ha t, b as edon th es e err or s, the IJ wro ng ly den ie d h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. Dis m is si ng Tun ’s app eal , th e BIA fo un d fi rs t tha t the IJ h adno t d em an de d th atTunceas e p ol it ic al act iv it y , bu t ra th er, m erel y su gg es te d t ha t the go ve rn m en t ha d n o p art ic ul ar i nt eres t i n Tu n, as ev id en cedby the factth atTunha d l iv ed pe acef ul ly for s ev eral m on th s wi th ou t i nc id en t af te r be in g re le as edfro m

pri so n an d s ig ni ng anag reem en t n otto pa rti ci pa te inpo li ti cs . The BI A nex t fo un d t ha t th e IJ di d n otus ur

p t he rol e o f th e p ro se cu to r whe n c ro ss -ex am in in g Tu n, b utwas si m pl y trying to un de rs tandTun ’s tes ti m on y an d b ui ldth e rec or d. Be cau se th e IJ ’s qu es ti on in g, tho ug h l en gt hy, didno t ex ceedth e sc op e o f th e d ire ct ex am in at io n a nddi d n otrefl ectan y ho st il it y or b ia s, the BIA co nc lu de d, Tu n h ad fai le d t o e st ab li sh a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on . The BIA fu rth er fo un d t ha t the IJ d idno t m is ch arac te riz e Tun ’s res po ns es in or de r to supp ort an adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a ndth atth e IJ ’s adv ers e 16cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n was supp orte d b y “ m yria d i nc on si st en ci es ” in th e rec or d. Mo reo ve r, gi ve n t he weakne ss of Tu n’s t es ti m on y , th e IJdi d n oterr i n fi nd in g t ha t co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce s ho ul d h av e b een pro vi de d. Th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t be cau se th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s, Tu n fai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r es tabl is hi ng eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , and/o r CAT rel ie f. II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Tunarg ue s t ha t the IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g was im pr op er, tha t the IJ e rredin de m an di ng th athe pro vi de co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, th atth e IJvi ol at edhi s due pro ces s ri gh ts by cros s- ex am in in g h im an d aba nd on in g hi s ro le as ane ut ral arb it er, an d tha t the BIA erre d i n a ffi rm in g t he IJ’s d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r CAT rel ie f be cau se itwas m or e li ke ly tha n n othe wou ldbe to rtu redup on returni ng to Bu rm a. W e ad dr es s ea ch arg um en t i n turn.

“ W e rev ie w on ly the [BIA’s] deci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atitex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n.” Al Najjar v. As hc ro ft, 2 57 F.3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). To the ex te ntth atth e BIA d oe s ad op t the IJ’s re as on in g, we re vi ew th e IJ ’s de ci si on as we ll . See i d. Be cau se inth is cas e th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ ’s dec is io n, we re vi ew on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s l eg al co nc lu si on s d e n ov o a ndit s fa ctua l fi nd in gs 17un de r th e subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, wh ic h re qu ire s u s t o a ffi rm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s “ supp orte d b y

reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rd co ns id eredas awho le .” Mejiav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 98 F.3d12 53 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . Und er thi s h ig hl y de fere nt ia l st an da rd , we vi ew th e rec or d i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e BIA’s d eci si on an d are b ou ndby tha t d eci si on “un le ss [a] reas on ab le ad jud ic at orwou ldbe co m

pe ll ed to co nc lu de to th e co nt rary.” Adefem i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(4 )(B) ). Acco rd in gl y , “ ev enif t he ev id en ce co ul d s up po rt m ul ti pl e co nc lu si on s, we m us t af firm th e ag en cy ’s de ci si on un le ss th ere i s n o re as on ab le ba si s fo r th atde ci si on .” Id . at 1 02 9.

A. Adv ers e Cre di bi li ty D et erm in at io n As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te th atalt ho ug h n ei th er p arty rai se s the is su e o f whe th er Tu n e xh au st edadm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wi th reg ardto th e IJ ’s adv ers e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n, we ar e o bl ig at edto rev ie w ou r juri sd ic ti on su a sp on te . See Un it edSta te s v . Cit y of M ia m i, Fl a., 66 4 F .2d43 5, 4 44 -4 5 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 1) (en ba nc ) (Rubi n, J ., con cu rri ng ). W e m ay rev ie w a fin al ord er o f rem ov al on ly if

“ th e al ie n h as ex haus te d a ll adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai labl e to th e al ie n a s o f rig ht .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ); s ee al so Fern an de z-Be rn al v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2 57 18F.3 d 1 30 4, 1 31 7 n .13 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Whe re the IJ m ak es anex pl ic itadve rs e

cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n a ndth e p et it io ne r do es no t s pe ci fic al ly chal le ng e th is fin di ng on ap pe al to th e BIA, the pe ti ti on er h as fai le d t o e xh au sthi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, the reb y

de pr iv in g o f us juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the IJ’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n o n p et it io n fo r rev ie w. See Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). Thi s re m ai ns tru e ev enif t he BIA h as co ns id eredth e is su e su a sp on te . Id. at12 51 . Alt ho ug h Tu n d idno t ra is e anex pl ic itch al le ng e to th e IJ ’s adv ers e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n u nd er an enum erat edhe ad in g i n h is bri ef o n app eal to th e BIA, h e arg ue d, i n t he co nt ex t o f hi s ar gu m en t tha t the IJ was bi as ed , th atth e IJ m is co ns tru edhi s t es ti m on y inord er t o fi ndin co ns is te nc ie s i n t he reco rdan d di sp ut edth e IJ ’s fin di ng s co nc ern in g s pe ci fic area s o f te st im on y on whi ch th e IJ ba se d h is cred ib il it y

fin di ng . Becau se Tun ’s bri ef ad equa te ly not ifi edth e BIA tha t he wis he d t o c ha ll en ge th e ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, we d eem th e is su e ex haus te d b efo re the BIA an d a dd res s t he m eri ts . See, e.g ., Lin v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 54 3 F .3d11 4, 1 21 (3dCir . 20 01 ) (n ot in g t ha t the ex haus ti on requi rem en t s ho ul d no t b e ap pl ie d i n a“ dr aco ni anfas hi on ” an d h ol di ng th at , “ so lo ng as a n imm ig rat io n p et it io ne r m ak es so m e effo rt, h owe ve r in su ffi ci en t, t o p la ce the [BIA] on no ti ce o f a s tra ig ht fo rwardis su e b ei ng rai se d o n app eal , a pe ti ti on er i s d eem ed 19to ha ve ex haus te d [h is ] adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n

om it te d) . To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m , th e ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g, wi th cred ib le ev id en ce, tha t h e was (1) pe rs ecu te d i n t he pa ston acco un t of race , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n; or ( 2) ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a st atut or il y -p ro te ct edgro un d. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A); 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .13 (a), (b ); s ee al so Ch env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). 5 An ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y m ay be su ffi ci en t, wi th ou t co rro bo rat io n, t o su st ai n t hi s b ur de n, s o l on g a s t he tri er o f fac t i s s at is fie d t ha t the ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y is cred ib le . See INA § 20 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( a); see als o Ni fta li ev v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 04 F.3d12 11 , 12 17 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot in g In re S-M -J , 21 I. & N. Dec. 72 2 (B IA 19 97 )) (n ot in g th at“ anali en ’s owntes ti m on y cansu ffi ce wh ere the tes ti m on y is be li ev ab le , To establish elig ibility

for withholdingof re moval under the I NA, an a pplicant must 5 demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that she w ill be persec uted upon re turningto her home country

on acc ount of a prote cted ground. F ahim v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 278 F .3d 1216, 1218 (11th Cir. 2002) (pe r curiam) (quotation mar ks and citation omitted). B eca use “[t] his standard is more string ent than the we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution require d for a sylum,” Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F .3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks a nd citation omitted), an applicant who f

ails to establish eligibility for a sylum is gene rally

prec luded from qua lifying f or withholding of r emoval, see Al Najjar , 257 F.3d at 1292-93. 20co ns is te nt , an d su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il ed ”). On t he othe r ha nd , an a dv ers e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n a lo ne m ay

be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he de ni al of r el ie f, es pe ci al ly whe re the ap pl ic an t p ro du ces no ev id en ce o th er tha n h is own tes ti m on y . See Mo ha m m edv. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 47 F.3d13 40 , 13 45 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Tho ug h co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce i s n otrequi red , “ [t]he weak er an ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y , . . . th e g reat er the ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Yan g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 18 F.3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d) .

“ Onc e anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s m ad e, th e b ur de n i s o n t he ap pl ic an t al ie n t o s ho w th atth e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de ci si on was n otsupp orte d b y sp eci fic , co ge ntreas on s o r was no t b as edon subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n om it te d) . The BI A’ s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n, l ik e an y

ot he r fi nd in g o f fac t, i s rev ie wedforsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d m ay no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss th e rec or d co m pe ls it . Id. Tun arg ue s t ha t the adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g was erro ne ou s b ecau se he was no t g iv enanop po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n t he in co ns is te nc ie s ci te d b y th e IJ , hi s ex pl an at io ns were i gn or ed , andth e IJ m ad e u nf ou nd edass um

pt io ns . He con te nd s ad di ti on al ly tha t the BIA m is in te rp ret edMat te r of S-M- J- in fin di ng th atth e IJ di d no t err in de m an di ng th atTunpro vi de pro of th athe was a rres te d, d et ai ne d, an d 21to rtu red , bec au se th e rec or ds eithe r di d n otex is t o r co ul d n otbe ob ta in ed . Fin al ly,

he co nt en ds th atth e BIA an d IJ erre d i n d en y in g h is pe ti ti on forasylum an d wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al for th e ab ov e-m en ti on edreas on s. Infin di ng th atTunwas n otcred ib le when he cla im edto ha ve be en pe rs ecu te d a ndto rtu redin Bu rm a o n a cco un t o f hi s p ol it ic al op in io n, t he BIA sp eci fic al ly not edth e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) Tun tes ti fie d i ni ti al ly tha t h e d idno t g o t o t he un iv ers it y

be cau se th e te ch ni cal in st itut e ref us edto is su e h im

th e n eces sa ry cert ifi cat e, bu t l at er t es ti fie d t ha t h e was reject edby the un iv ers it y be cau se of h is po li ti cal op in io n; (2) Tuntes ti fie d t ha t h e ap pl ie d t o t he un iv ers it y , bu t h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n s ta te s t ha t h e g radua te d fr om th e uni ve rs it y ; (3 ) Tun tes ti fie d t ha t h e le arn edfro m

th e u ni ve rs it y

th athi s ad m is si on was d en ie d, b utlat er t es ti fie d t ha t he fir stlea rn edth athe wou ldbe un ab le to att en d t he un iv ers it y fro m a pr is on of fic er upo n b ei ng rel eas edfro m hi s s ev en -m on th de te nt io n; (3) Tun ’s ass ert io n th atth e g ov ern m en t wan te d t o p ers ecu te hi m m erel y fordi st rib ut in g p ro de m oc racy leafl et s was in co m pa ti bl e with h is tes ti m on y th athi s p aren ts were pe rm it te d t o o pe nl y

pa rti ci pa te in an ti -g ov ern m en t p ol it ic al act iv it ie s wi th ou t rep ercu ss io n; (4) Tunst at edin hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n tha t h is two un cl es were s ti ll in jail in 20 03 , bu t t es ti fie d a t the rem ov al he ari ng th atth ey were re le as edfro m de te nt io n i n 1 99 9 o r 20 00 ; (5 ) Tun ’s asylum ap pl ic at io n c on ta in edno de ta il s ab ou t 22hi s 1 99 6 d et en ti onan d t ortu re, y ethe ga ve “ vi vi d t es ti m on y ” wit h re ga rdto th es e

ev en ts at t he rem ov al he ari ng ; (6 ) Tun tes ti fie d t ha t h e was bru ta ll y to rtu red , y et he di d n otsee k a ny m ed ic al tre at m en t af te r th e al le ge d t ortu re. W e n ot e in it ia ll y

th atalt ho ug h t he BIA’s de ci si on affi rm in g t he IJ’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n was ul ti m at el y supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, we d o no t b el ie ve th atth e rec or d s up po rts th e BIA’s co nc lu si onth atTunwas in co ns is te ntwith re ga rdto whethe r orno t h e g radua te d fr om th e u ni ve rs it y . Tun te st ifi edat t he rem ov al he ari ng th athe gra du at edfro m th e g ov ern m en t t ech ni cal in st itut e (al so refe rredto as M ekth il ar Tech ni cal Ins ti tu te ) in19 96 an d subs eque nt ly app li edto co nt in ue hi s d eg ree a t the un iv ers it y bu t was no t ac cep te d du e to hi s p as t p ol it ic al act iv ity . This tes ti m on y is co ns is te ntwith Tu n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, wh ic h s ta te s tha t h e g radua te d fr om “pr e-u ni ve rs it y ” atth e go ve rn m en t t ech ni cal in st itut e in Mei kt il a in 19 96 , bu t was ba rredfro m att en di ng Yan go n In st itut e o f Tech no lo gy for h is “ hi gh er educ at io n.” It i s cl ear f ro m ou r read in g o f th e rec or d t ha t the Mek th il ar Tech ni cal Ins ti tu te is sep arat e an d d is ti nc t fro m th e “ un iv ers it y ,” whi ch is els ewh ere r eferredto as R an go on /Yan go n In st itut e of Tech no lo gy and/o r Ran go onUni ve rs it y . Con tra ry to th e BIA’s as se rti on , Tun do es no t al le ge in hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n tha t h e ev er g ai ne d a dm is si on to , at te nd ed , or g radua te d fr om “ Ran go on Ins ti tu te of Tec hn ol og y ,” “ Ran go on

23Uni ve rs ity ,” oran y ot he r “ un iv ers it y .” Tho ug h t he BIA m is read s t he reco rdin th is reg ard , we nev erthe le ss co nc lu de th atth e o th er i nc on si st en ci es cit edby the BIA are s up po rte d b y

am pl e ev id en ce i n t he reco rdan d p ro vi de su ffi ci en t g ro un ds for th e ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n. Furth er, i n l ig htof t he weakne ss es an d l ackof c larit y in Tun ’s tes ti m on y , we ag ree wi thth e BIA tha t i t was no t i nc orrectforth e IJ to fin d t ha t co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce co ul d a ndsh ou ldhave be enpre se nt ed . See Yan g, 4 18 F.3dat 1 20 1. We fu rth er ag ree t ha t the IJ d idno t m is in te rp retMat te r of S-M- J. In th atcas e, th e BIA si m pl y he ldth atIJs m ay

no t p la ce “ [u ]nreas on ab le de m an ds . . . on anasylu m ap pl ic an t t o p res en t . . . corro bo rat io n fr om th e p ers ecu to r.” 2 1 I. & N. Dec. at 72 5. Acco rd in gl y , corro bo rat in g d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce o f th e as y lu m

ap pl ic an t’s pa rti cu la r ex pe rie nc e is no t re qu ire d wh ere t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m “ rel ie s p rimaril y on pe rs on al ex pe rie nc es no t re as on ab ly sub ject t o v eri fic at io n.” Id. Anasylu m ap pl ic an t s ho ul d, h owe ve r, “pr ov id e d oc um en ta ry supp ort fo r m at eri al fact s wh ic h are c en tra l t o h is or h er cl ai m an d e as il y

subjec t t o v eri fic at io n, s uc h a s ev id en ce of hi s o r he r pl ace o f bi rth , m ed iaacco un ts of l arg e d em on st rat io ns , evi de nc e o f a publ ic ly hel d o ffi ce, o r do cu m en ta ti on of m ed ic al tre at m en t.” Id . Whe re an ap pl ic an t d oe s n otpro vi de su ch ev id en ce, h e sh ou ldad equa te ly exp la in hi s fa il ur e to do so . Id. 24Eve n a ss um in g t he cred ib il it y of Tu n’s cl ai m

th athi s p ers ecu to rs wou ldno t gi ve hi m do cu m en ts co rro bo rat in g h is sev en -m on thde te nt io n a ndto rtu re, an d t ha t a d em an d fo r su chin fo rm at io n wo ul d b e u nr eas on ab le un de r Mat te r of S-M- J- , Tun ne ve rth el es s fa il edto pro vi de an y pl au si bl e ex pl an at io n fo r hi s i nabi li ty to pr oduc e co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce o f ot he r m at eri al asp ect s o f hi s cl ai m s, i nc lu di ng , fo r ex am pl e, ev id en ce tha t h e h adbe enarre st ed , th athi s p aren ts were m em be rs of th e NLD, th athe was d en ie d a dm is si on to th e uni ve rs it y be cau se of h is po li ti cal op in io n, o r th athi s p aren ts lo stth ei r job s b ecau se of the ir p ol it ic al act iv it ie s. With res pe ctto Tun ’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de ev id en ce o f hi s p aren ts ’ po li ti cal act iv it ie s, we no te th atTun ’s cla im

th athi s p aren ts wou ldface cri m in al san ct io ns forsen di ng pr oo f of th ei r NLD m em

be rs hi p t hr ou gh th e m ai l i s s eri ou sl y un de rm in edby his te st im on y th atth e g ov ern m en t was aware o f hi s p aren ts ’ in vo lv em en t wi th th e NLD andin factpe rm it te d t he m to org an iz e an d c on ve ne NLD m eet in gs . Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA co rrec tl y he ldth atitwas n otun reas on ab le forth e IJ to co ns id er the ab se nc e o f su ch co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e in co nc lu di ng th atTunha d fai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f. See i d. at72 5- 26 . Insu m , gi ve n the in co ns is te nc ie s i n t he reco rdan d t he lac k o f do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce co rro bo rat in g Tu n’s al le ga ti on s o f pe rs ecu ti on , we can no t s ay th atth e reco rdco m

pe ls rev ers al of t he BIA’s co nc lu si on th atTunwas n otcred ib le an d 25th us fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on or h ada well -fo un de d

fearof f utur e p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edst atus . See Mo ha m m ed , 54 7 F.3 d a t 1 35 2 (s ta ti ng th atwher e th ere i s n o e vi de nc e o th er tha n a n app li can t’s te st im on y , an a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a lo ne is su ffi ci en t t o d en y th e ap pl ic at io n) . Ina sm

uc h a s Tu n fa il edto carry hi s b ur de n o f pr ov in g e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m , he c an no t s at is fy th e m or e st rin ge ntst an da rdap pl ic ab le to a cl ai m for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al . See Fo rg ue , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 8 n .4 (n ot in g t ha t ap pl ic an t who fai ls to est ab li sh cla im of a sylum

on th e m eri ts ne ces sa ril y fai ls to est ab li sh el ig ib il it y forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al or C AT reli ef). B. Due Pro ces s Tun ne xtarg ue s t ha t the IJ’s cr os s- ex am in at io n v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s rig htto a fai r he ari ng be cau se th e IJ “ fo cu se d h is qu es ti on s o n m inut iath atdi d n ot go to th e h eartof the asylum cla im ” an d “ as ke d h is qu es ti on s s ol el y forth e pu rp os e o f fi nd in g a ny min us cu le di sc rep an cy ” inord er t o d en y rel ie f. App el la nt ’s Bri ef at11 . He ass ert s t ha t the BIA ab an do ne d i ts du ty to re vi ew th e reco rdob jecti ve ly andne ve r co ns id eredwhet he r th e IJim pr op erl y ba se d i ts de ci si on on no nm at eri al tes ti m on y an d e rro ne ou s as su m

pt io ns . W e rev ie w con st itut io na l due pro ces s cl ai m s d e n ov o. Se e Lon y em v. Uni te d S ta te s Att’y

Gen., 3 52 F.3d13 38 , 13 41 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m). It i s

26well -s et tl edth atanin di vi du al in rem ov al pro ceed in gs is en ti tl edto du e p ro ces s o f

la w un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t. Ren o v . Flo res , 50 7 U.S. 2 92 , 30 6, 1 13 S. Ct. 14 39 , 14 49 (19 93 ); s ee al so Fern an de z-Be rn al , 25 7 F .3dat 1 31 1. “ Due pro ces s i s sa ti sf ie d o nl y by a ful l an d fa ir h eari ng .” Ib rah im v. INS, 8 21 F.2d15 47 , 15 50 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . In o rd er t o e st ab li sh a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on , ho wev er, al ie ns m

us t d em on st rat e b ot h ade pr iv at io n o f li be rty with ou t due pr oc es s o f la w andsubs ta nt ia l p reju di ce. See Lon y em , 35 2 F .3dat 1 34 1- 42 . W it h res pe ctto th e la tt er, the ali enm us t d em on st rat e th atth e o ut co m e o f th e rem ov al pr oc eed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t b utforth e al le ge d c on st itut io na l erro rs . Ib rah im , 82 1 F .2dat 1 55 0. Whi le we ha ve no t d efi ne d wh enanIJ h as act edin a m an ne r th atde pr iv es anali enof h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , th e Sev en th Cir cu itha s h el d t ha t the IJ d oe s n ot vi ol at e th e ap pl ic an t’s due pro ces s ri gh ts by “ li m it [in g] th e ex te ntof s om e te st im on y or f reque nt ly int errupt [in g] th e ap pl ic an t’s p res en ta ti on ,” be cau se su ch co nduc t m erel y

“ se rv e[s ] to foc us th e p ro ceed in gs an d e xc lu de irr el ev an t ev id en ce.” Kerc iku v . I.N.S., 31 4 F .3d91 3, 9 17 -1 8 (7 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m); se e al so Torr es v. Mu ka se y , 55 1 F .3d61 6, 6 27 (7t h C ir. 2 00 8) (IJ ’s ov erac ti ve rol e du rin g t he he ari ng s, i m

pa ti en ce, i m

pr op er que st io ni ng , and“ rel ia nc e o n p ers on al kn owl ed ge be y on d t he fact s i n t he reco rd ” was no t s o e gr eg io us as t o v io la te 27ap pl ic an t’s due pro ces s ri gh ts ); Ha ss anv. Go nz al es , 40 3 F .3d42 9, 4 36 -3 7 (6 th

Ci r. 20 05 ) (IJ ’s st at em en ts th atpe ti ti on er was “ co m pl et el y unbe li ev ab le ” an d t ha t hi s t es ti m on y

was “ in he ren tl y

in cred ib le ,” “ in te rn al ly inc on si st en t,” a nd

“ no ns en si cal ,” whi le “brus qu e” an d i na rtf ul , di d “ no t re ve al anun de rlyin g b ia s i n fav orof t he Gov ern m en t” an d t hu s p et it io ne r “ was gi ve n aful l an d fa ir op po rtu ni ty to p res en t h is cas e fo r rel ie f in fro ntof ane ut ral arb it er” a ndwas n ot de ni eddu e p ro ces s” esp eci al ly giv enth atpe ti ti on er’s t es ti m on y “ was co nt rad ic to ry

an d i nc on si st en t” ). The Sev en th Cir cu ithe ldth atth e IJdo es , ho wev er, v io la te anap pl ic an t’s rig htto du e p ro ces s wh ere h e “ba r[s ] co m pl et e ch un ks of o ral tes ti m on y th at wou ldsupp ort the ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m s.” Ker ci ku , 31 4 F .3dat 9 18 . The Ni nt h Ci rcu itsi m il arl y

ha s h el d t ha t an ap pl ic an t i s d en ie d aful l an d fa ir h eari ng in vi ol at io n o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t wh ere t he IJ “ be ha ve [s ] no t as a ne ut ral fact -fi nd er i nt eres te d i n h eari ng th e p et it io ne r’s ev id en ce, b utas apa rti sa n ad jud ic at orsee ki ng to in ti m id at e [p et it io ne r] andhi s co un se l” an d “ refu se [s ] to let [p et it io ne r] tes ti fy

ab ou t an yth in g t ha t was in cl ud edin hi s wri tt enap pl ic at io n.” Co lm en ar v . INS, 21 0 F .3d96 7, 9 71 (9t h C ir. 2 00 0) . W e ag ree wi th th e BIA tha t the IJ’s co nduc t dur in g t he rem ov al he ari ng di d no t v io la te Tun ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts . Alth ou gh th e IJ di d que st io n Tu n a t l en gt h 28an d p oi nt edou t k ey weakne ss es in Tun ’s cla im s – no ti ng , forex am

pl e, th e la ckof pe rs ecu ti on face d b y

Tun ’s par en ts forth ei r act iv it ie s, Tu n’s ab il it y to li ve free ly fo r so m e te n m on th s af

te r hi s re le as e, an d Tu n’s fa il ur e to ap pl y forasylu m

in an y of th e o th er co un tri es th ro ug h wh ic h h e p as se d i n t he fou r y ears he sp en t as a sa il or– i t i s cl ear f

ro m ou r rea di ng of t he reco rdth atth e IJ ’s qu es ti on s an d co m m en ts , whi ch were re la te d t o t he m at eri al fact s u nd erl y in g Tu n’s cl ai m s, were m ean t t o u nd ers ta ndan d c la rif y Tun ’s tes ti m on y

an d t o e li ci t ev id en ce n eces sa ry to de ve lo p t he reco rd . At no po in t dur in g h is qu es ti on in g o f Tundi d t he IJ im pu gn Tun ’s cha ract er o r ot he rwis e in di cat e th athe be li ev edTun ’s cla im s t o b e wit ho utm eri t, n ordi d the IJ e ve r refu se to letTuntes ti fy ab ou t ev en ts th atwou ld supp ort h is cla im

for rel ie f. Becaus e Tun was g iv ena fu ll an d fa ir h eari ng , he h as fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athi s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d. C. CAT Rel ie f Tun do es no t ar gu e th e m eri ts of h is CAT cla im inhi s b rie f to th e BIA, co nt en di ng in st eadth atth e IJ erro ne ou sl y de ni edCAT rel ie f “ as a res ul t o f th e Co urt’s ab an do nm en t o f it s ro le as ane ut ral an d i m pa rti al arb it er, u nf

ai r de m an ds an d d is reg ardfor[th e] ho ld in gs in Mat te r of S-M- J- . . . as well as b ia s an d pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t re sp on de nt .” AR at26 . Tun ’s pas si ng refe ren ce t o h is CAT cl ai m is in su ffi ci en t t o c on st itut e actua l p res en ta ti on of t he cla im to th e BIA fo r 29pu rp os es of e xh au st io n. Cf . Ali m v. Go nz al es , 44 6 F .3d12 39 , 12 54 -5 5 (1 1th C ir. 20 06 ) (p et it io ne r ex haus te d re m ed ie s wi th res pe ctto CAT cla im wher e h is bri ef

“ ex pr es sl y

st at edth atth e is su es de ci de d b y th e IJ ‘ co nc ern edhi s ap pl ic at io ns fo r . . . pro te ct io n u nd er the Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re,’” “reco un t[e d] th e IJ ’s factua l fi nd in gs , andleg al co nc lu si on s, o n t he m eri ts of [ hi s C AT clai m ]” and

“ fo rm al ly requ es t[e d] th atth e BIA wi th ho ldrem ov al un de r th e . . . CAT, wit h sp eci fic refe ren ces to th e ap pl ic ab le fed eral st atut es an d re gu la ti on s” ). W e th eref or e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er wh ethe r Tun su cces sf ul ly establ is he d el ig ib il it y forpro te ct io n u nd er the CAT. See Am ay a-Artun du ag a, 46 3 F .3dat 12 50 . Evenif ju ris di ct io n wer e n otlac ki ng , ho wev er, we n ot e th atTun ’s CAT cl ai m ne ve rth el es s wo ul d fa il be cau se itis ba se d o n t es ti m on y th e IJ fou ndno t cred ib le an d h e o ffer s n o o th er ev id en ce d em on st rat in g tha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n no t h e wou ldbe to rtu redif re tu rn edto Bu rm a. II I. CONCLUS IO N Bec au se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Tun was no t cr ed ib le , andno th in g i n t he reco rdwou ldco m pe l a r eas on ab le factfin de r to co nc lu de ot he rwis e, we DENYTun ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w of t he BIA’s de ci si on di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m th e IJ ’s den ia l o f as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . PETI TI ON DENI ED . 30