Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60077 Su m m ar y Cal endar

KHI N HT W E, a l s o k n o wna s Kh i n Ma u n gHt we P et i t i on er

v. E R I C H
. H O LD E R JR
. , U
. S. A t t or ney G ener al Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 088- 787- 700

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d G A R Z Aan d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P et i t i on er Kh i n H t w e (“ H t w e” ) petit i on s f or r evi ew of

an ordero f

theB oard of I m m i grati on A pp eal s (“B o a rd ” ) di sm i ssi n g h i s app ealf rom an i m m i grati on j udg e ’ s de c i si on d en yi ng hi s r e que s t s f o ra s yl um , w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l , a nd pr o t e c t i o n und e rt he U ni t e d Nat i o ns Convent i o n Aga i ns tTo r t ur e (“ CA T” ) a nd den yi n g h i s m ot i on to re m a n d . B ecau se t h i s c ou rtf i n ds n o revers ibl e i ssue of l a w o rfa c t , t h e p e t i t i o n i s DE NI ED
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60077

2 FACTS H tw e is an a tiv e a n dcit iz e n o f B u r m aw h o w a s a p p r e h e n d e dw h ile at t e m p t i n gt o ill e g a l l ye n t e rt h e Un i t e dS t a t e s . Ht we a p p l i e df o ra s yl um , w i t h h ol di n g of

rem oval, an d C A T prot ect i on s. H t w e cl ai m ed that he faced p oliti ca lpe rsec u ti on i n B u rm aall eg i n g, i n ter ali a , tha t: 1. K h i n M u an g L ay w as a m e m b er of t h e N ati on alL eagu e f or D em oc r ac y ( a poli t i c alpar t y s ee ki ng dem oc r ac y i n B urm a) executive com m ittee a n dw a s a rr e ste db ym ilita ryin te lligen ce f orpoli t i c alr eas ons i n 1992. 2. K h i n M u an g L ay w as his brot h er. 3. H e parti ci pa t ed i n Kh i n M u an g L ay’ s pol i t i calact i on s. 4. In 199 6, he w as arres t ed an d i n t errogat ed by the B u rm ese m i l i t ar y andw as f

o r c e d t o s i gn a go ve r nm e ntf o r m pr o m i s i ng nott o par t i c i pat e i n any poli t i c alac t ivi t y. 5
. Hep a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e S e p t e mb e r2 0 0 7 p r o t e s t s i n B u r ma ag ai ns tt he Bur m e s e g o ve r nm e n ta nd was pr e s e nta tt he pr o t e s t s w he n t he Bur m e s e g o ve r nm e ntc r ac ke d d o w n o n t he protes t ors. 6. T h e B u rm ese governm en tw as l ooking f or hi m becau se of t h ese pol i t i calact ivi t i es. Th e i m m i gr at i on j udge di d n otf i nd H t w e’ s t es t i m ony cr edibl e. T he j udge fo u n dn u m e r o u s in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n H tw e ’ s a p p lic a tio n fo r a s y lu m a n dh is t est i m on y. Th e j u dg e dem an ded t h at H t w e present co rr o b orat i n g evi den ce. O t he rt han hi s o w n t e s t i m o ny, H t w e pr e s e nt e d t hr e e l e t t e r s f r o m m o nks s ay i ng t hatt he Bur m e s e go ve r nm e nt w as l o o ki ng f o r hi m and t hat he s ho ul d s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es ; a l et t er f r om hi s w i fe s t at i ng t hatt he B urm es e g ove r nm entw as lo o k in gfo rh im (b u t n o t d e ta ilin gw h y); ale tt e rfr o m h is fr ie n dm e n tio n in gh is p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e S e p t e mb e r2 0 0 7 p r o t e s t s ; a n dp i c t u r e s s h o wi n gh i s n e p h e ws pa rticip a ti n g i n th e Sep t em ber 200 7 protes t s. H t w e cl ai m s he l ostpi ct u res of h i m sel f parti ci pa t i n g i n t h e S eptem ber 200 7 protes t s. H t w e coul d n otN o. 09- 60077

3 authe nt i c at e a ny o f t he l e t t e r s . The j udge d e m and e d thatH t w e pr e s e nt
o bje c tiv e co r r o b o r a tin ge v id e n c e th a t (1 ) H tw e s ig n e dth e 1 9 9 6 fo r m , (2 ) Kh in M ua ngLa ywas h i s b r o t he r , ( 3 ) K hi n M uang La ywas am e m b e ro f t he NLD
e xe c ut ivec o m m i t t ee, ( 4) t he Bur m e s e g o ve r nm e ntha d r e as o n t o s us pe c the pa r t i c i pa t e d i n t he Se pt e m be r2 00 7 pr o t e s t s , and ( 5) t he Bur m e s e g o ve r nm e nt soug h tH t w e f

or pol i t i calreasons. H t w e fai l ed to do so. T h e i m m i grati on j u dg e (IJ) f ou n d that H t w e did n otm eethi s burd en of pr o o f a nd d e ni e d H t w e ’ s a ppli c at i o ns f o rr e l i e f

a nd prot e c t i o n. H t w e f i l e d a t i m e l y ap pe ala nd m o t i o n t o r e m andw i t h t he Boa r d. The Boa r d d i s m i s s e d the ap pea lan d d en i e d h is req u estf or r em an d. Th e i n st an tpetit i on f or r evi ew f o l l o w e d. DI S CU S S I ON Bec aus e t he Boa r d a do pt e d t h e I J’ s de c i s i o n, t hi s c o ur tr e vi e w s b o t h t he B o a r d ’ s a n d th e IJ ’ s d e c is io n . Mi k h a e lv . I NS , 1 1 5 F .3d 2 9 9 , 3 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). Q ue s t i o ns o f

l aw ar e r e vi e w e d de no vo , w h i l e fact u a l f i n di n gs are r evi ew ed f or su b stan ti a l ev i d e n c e . L op ez -G o m ezv. A sh cr oft , 263 F
. 3d442 , 444 ( 5th C i r. 20 01 )

. “U nde rs ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e r e vi e w , [t he Cour t] m aynotr e ve r s e t he [ B oard]’ s fact u aldeter m i n ati on s u n l ess [i t] f i n d[s ] not onl y t h at th e evi den ce s u p p orts acon trarycon cl u sion , bu t th e ev i d en ce co m p els it. ” Ch u n v . I NS , 40 F. 3d7 6, 7 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 199 4)

. Thi s m e ans “t he a l i e n m us ts ho w t hatt he evi den ce w as so c om pel l i n g t h at no reasonab l e fact f i n der coul d concl u de ag ai n st i t. ” I d. A. D e c i s i o nsRegar di ng Asy l um andWi t hho l di ng of Rem o v al W h ere an ali en ha s not present e d credibl e evi den ce of ei t h er past persecuti on or a w el l

- f ou n ded fear of

future persec u t i on , t h e al i en ha s not d e m o n s tr a te de l i g ib ilityfo ra s y lu m . Zh ang v. G on zales , 432 F. 3d 339, 345 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). “C red ib i l i ty d eterm i n a ti on s a re g ive n gre a t de feren ce.” Ef ev. A sh cr oft , 29 3 F. 3d 89 9, 90 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 02 )

. “ [ I ] n e va l uat i ng an asyl um ap pl i c ant ’ s c r e dibil i t y, an [i m m i gr at i o n j udg e ] m ayr e l y o n o m i s s i o ns a ndN o. 09- 60077

Htwe does not brief the CATonapp eal , hence this contention is waive d. 1 4 i n consi st en ces t h at do not di rect l y rel ate t o t h e app l i can t ’ s c l ai m of persecuti on as l on g as t h e t ot al i t y of t h e circum st an ces est abli sh that t h e app l i can ti s not cred ib l e.” Xi u Xi a L i n v. Mu ka sey , 53 4 F
. 3 d16 2 , 16 4 ( 2 dC i r. 20 0 8 ). S ee 8 U
. S

. C

. § 11 5 8 (b)( 1 )( B )(i i i), as a m en d edbythe R E A L ID A ct. H t w e has notof

fer ed co m pel l i ng evi denc e t hath e has a w ell

- f ounded f

ear o f f ut ur e pe r s e c ut i o n. Fr o m t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d, t he I J c o ul d r e as o nab l y f i nd t h at H t w e’ s prof

fered evi den ce i s not credibl e. H t w e’ s t est i m on y w as sel fs e rvi n g , inc o ns i s t e ntw i t h hi s a s yl um a ppli c at i o n, a nd c hang e d d ur i ng t r i al
. The l et t ers sup porti n g h i s c l ai m of pol i t i calperse cu tion w ere w rit t en af t er t he Sept e m be r200 7 pr o t e s t s and a r e v ag ue , g e ne r i c , a nd d o no tde t ailw hy t he B u rm ese govern m en t i s l ooking f or h i m . N on e of t h e f ive l et t ers d iscu ss es H t w e ’ s 1 99 6 ar r e s ta nd o nl y o ne di s c us s e s t he e ve nt s s ur r o undi ng t he Sept em ber2007 dem ons t r at i ons . Fort hes e a nd ot herr ea son s, t he j udge dou bted t h e l et t ers’cr edibi l i t y. Fu rt h er, H t w e presented no ob j ect ive evi den ce sta tin g t h at Kh i n M u an g L ay w as his brot h er ort h at H t w e w as present w h en t he Bur m e s e m i l i t a r ys up p r e s s e dt he Se p t e m b e r2 0 0 7 p r o t e s t s . Ac c o r d i ngl y, H t w e ha s fai l ed to present com pel l i n g evi den ce t o revers e t h e I J’ s f i n di n gs. W i t hhol di ng of

r em ovali s m andator y if an al i en c an dem ons t r at e b y a cle a r p ro b a b ilityth a t h is life o r fre e d o m w o u ldb e th re a te n e don a cc o u n t of a p r o te c te d g r o u n d
. INSv. Card oza- F on sec a , 480 U
. S

. 421 , 423 ( 198 7)

. B ecau se t he a s yl um s t and ar d i s m o r e l e ni e ntt han t he w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va ls t and ar d, fa ilu r e to o b ta in a s y lu m fo r e c lo s e s e lig ib ilityfo rw ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l. 1 B. Mo t i o n t o Rem and H t w e al so m ovedf

or r em an d to i n t rodu ce new evi den ce. W h ere an ali en f i l es a m ot i on se eki ng c ons i der at i on of new evi denc e duri ng t he pendenc y o f an ap pe al , i ti s c o ns i de r e d a m o t i o n t o r e m andi n t he na t ur e o f am o t i o n t o r e o pe n. R am cha n d an iv. G on zales , 434 F. 3d 337, 370 n. 6 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)

. The B oar d hasN o. 09- 60077

5 di scr et i on t o den y a m ot i on t o reopen i f i t i s n ot sati sf i ed th at t h e new evi den ce reli edu p on “w ou l dli k ely ch a n ge the resu l t of the cas e.” I

n t heMat t e rof

Coe lho , 2 0 I. & N
. D e c . 4 6 4 , 4 7 1 (B IA1 9 9 2 ). T h e B o a r d ’ s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to re o p e n is
rev i ew ed“un d er a h i gh l y d i ff ere n ti a lab u se-of- d i s c r eti on stan d a rd
. ” Zh ao v . G on zales , 404 F. 3d 295, 303 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)

. The B oar d’ s dec i si on w i l ln otbe di s t urbe d unl e s s i ti s a rbit r ar y, c ap r i c i o us , r ac i all y i nvi di o us o rut t e r l y w i t ho ut
e v id e n tia r yfo u n d a tio n . Mai v. G aon zales , 473 F
. 3d 162, 164 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Pr i t c h e t tv . I NS , 9 9 3 F .2d 8 0 , 8 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). H t w e sup ported hi s m ot i on t o rem an d w i t h a new un au t h en t i cat ed l et t er an d p h ot ograp h s al l egedt o be of hi s brother a n d t h e leader of t h e N L D
. T h ese new m at er i al s ar e no tt he o bj ec t ive i nf or m at i on s our c es t hatt h e IJ fel tw as
n ece ssa ryto ver i fy H tw e’ s cl a i m . A ccord i n gly, th e B oa rd w a s w i th i n i ts di scr et i on t o deter m i n e t h at th i s evi den ce w ou l d n otal t er th e I J’ s det erm i n ati on andt o de ny t he m o t i o n t o r e m and
. CO NC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e p e tit io n is D E N IE D
.