2004 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 10-4-2004 

# S al a m a v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1374

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S al a m a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 262. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/262NOT PRECEDE NTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT Case No: 03-1374 MONA MOSAD SALAMA, Petitioner
v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE UNIT ED STA TES OFAMERI CA,

Respondent On petiti on for revi ew of a final or der of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals File No: A76-132- 596

__________________________________ Submitte d pursuant

to Third Ci rcuit

LAR 34.1(a) on September 30, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , FU EN TE S, and SM ITH , Circuit

Judges (Fil ed: October

4, 2004)

____________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_____________________ Sm ith, Circuit

Judge
. Mo na M osad Sa lama pe titioned for review of the B oard of Im migration A ppeal’s (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigr ation J udge’s (“ IJ”) de nial of her appli cati on1 Th e IJ h ad ju risdi ction pur sua nt to 8 C .F.R . § 208 .2(b) (2 001 ). The BIA had a ppella te

juris dicti on p ursu ant to 8 C .F.R . § 3.1(b) (2002). We exercise j urisdi ction pur suant t o § 242 (b) o f the Imm igra tion and Na tion ality A ct, 8 U .S.C . § 1252(b ).
2 The nature of the asylum p etitions o f Sa lama ’s niec e and neph ew we re exte nsive ly debated before the IJ . Their appeals to the BIA, however, were withdrawn.
3 The INS is now the Bureau of Citizenshi p and Immigration Servi ces withi n the De par tme nt o f H om elan d S ecu rity. 6 U .S.C . § 27 1 (S upp . 200 4).
4 Because Salama d id not raise her cl aim for relief under the Convention Against To rture on a ppe al, the issu e is w aive d. Kost v. Kozaki ewicz , 1 F.3d 17 6, 182 (3d Cir. 1993). 2 for asy lum, withholding of removal, and relie f under the Convention Against Torture. 1 We wi llaf

fi rm t he de ci si on o f the BIA . I. Salama is an Egypti an nati onal and ci tize n of Egypt . She was admitted to t he United States on a nonimmigr ant vis itor visa on August 24, 1997, al ong with her ni ece
an d ne phe w. 2 The Immigrati on and Natural ization Servi ce (“INS”) 3 issued a N otice to Appear, char ging Salama wit h being removabl e on May 5, 1999. Salama conceded removabil ity , but requested, on the basi s of rel igious persecution, a sylum, withhol ding of removal, and protec tion under the Conventi on Against Tort ure. 4 The IJ dete rmined that Salama was n ot credible, had d eliberately lied, and thus denied her application. T he BIA
sum ma rily aff irme d w itho ut o pin ion
. Wh ere, as here, the B IA em ploys its streamlining proced ures and a ffirms the IJ without opi nion, “ we review the I J’s opi nion and scr utini ze it s reasoni ng.” Dia v.3

Ash croft , 353 F .3d 22 8, 245 (3d C ir. 2003 ) (en b anc). O ur rev iew is limited to dete rmin ing wh ethe r the re is s ubs tanti al ev iden ce to sup por t the I J’s d ecis ion
. Id. at 24 7. Thi s r equ ir es th atwe de te rmi ne wh ether a r eas onabl e fa ctfi nde r c oul d mak e the s ame determi nation a s the agenc y bas ed on the admini strative record. I f so, t here is substant

ial evid enc e to s upp ort th e fin din g. Dia , 353 F.3d at 249. In Dia , we reiterat ed that the substanti al evidence standard also applies to adverse cred ibility de term inati ons . Id.; G ao v. A shcro ft , 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002). The focu s is on w hethe r the IJ’s a dver se find ing “is s upp orted b y eviden ce tha t a reaso nable min d w oul d fin d ad equ ate” to su ppo rt tha t dete rmin ation
. Dia , 353 F .3d at 2 49. S pecif ic
reas ons sho uld be g iven for find ing a w itnes s no t cred ible, id. , and those “reasons must bear a l egiti mate nexus t o the fi nding.” Bal asu bra manr im v . I NS , 143 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 1998) . While i nconsistencies maywarrant an a dverse credibil ity determi nation, the inconsi stencyshould “i nvolve the ‘heart of the asylum clai m.’” Gao , 299 F.3d at 272 (quoti ng Ceba llos- Castil lo v. INS , 904 F.2 d 51 9, 52 0 (9 th C ir. 19 90) ). II. An app lican t for asylum ma y estab lish h er eli gib ility by de mo nstra ting , inter alia , that s he either suffered past per secuti on or has a well -founded fear of persecution on the bas is of her relig ion . 8 U .S.C . § 110 1(a)(4 2). Th e bur den is upo n the a pplica nt to establ ish that she “qua lifi es as a r efugee under t he stat ute. ” Obianuju Ezeagwuna v. Ash croft , 301 F.3 d 11 6, 12 6-2 7 (3 d C ir. 20 02) .4

Here, Salama claimed that she and he r famil y had bee n subjected to sever al vic ious atta cks because t

hey were Coptic Chris tians . She ini tial ly clai med in her appl ication for asy lum that , becausetheywere Coptic Chri sti ans, her sister had been beaten to death, her brother kill ed, and her

mother so se verely

injured that

she eventua lly

died as a result

of her in ju ri es . He r f

ather , a cco rd in g t o Sa la ma, hadal so b een bea te n, anddi ed a t h ome after being dis charged from a hos pitalbecause st aff members observed Salama praying at his bedsi de. Although Salama’s testi mony before the IJwas consistent with he r applic ation, th e IJ po inted o ut that it w as at od ds w ith the tes timon y of othe r fam ily members and documentary evidence. The IJ noted t hat Salama’s brother tes tifi ed that their sister died be cause she was burned, their br other di ed from inj uries sustai ned at work when he fell i n a hole at a constr uction s ite, and thei r mother was i njured i n an automo bile accident. D ocum entary evidence ind icated that Salam a’s father died, co ntrary to Salama’s testi mony, in the hospit al. Upon being confronted w ith these i nconsistencies, Sal am a w as u nab le to e xpl ain th e dis par ities. We are sati sfied t

hat the IJ’s adverse credibil ity determi nation i s based upon substant ial e vidence. The IJ provi ded specif ic rea sons for fi nding Salama’ s test imony incredible, and these are supported by t he record. Furth ermo re, we need not ad dress S alam a’s claim that the IJ imp rope rly consoli dated her

applic ation wit

h that of her niec e and nephew because that is sue was not5 Sal amaal so ch al le nge d the BIA ’s us e o f i ts st re aml in in g r eg ul atio ns . A s we explai ned in Dia , the stre amlini ng regulat ions ar e neither contr ary to the I mmigrati on and National ity

Act nor offensi ve to theDue Process Clause . 353 F.3d at 245. 5 ra is ed in he r appe al to th e BI A. 5 Abd ulrah ma n v. A shcro ft , 330 F.3d 587, 594 -95 (3d C ir. 200 3); Alleyn e v. INS , 879 F.2d 1177, 11 82 (3d C ir. 1989). For the fo regoing rea sons, we will affirm the order of the BIA denying Salam a’s application for asy lum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture.