P etitio n er’s first an d last nam es w ere tra nsp osed on his 1 N oti ce to A pp ear and in the Board ’ s decis ion. W e have correc ted this to s h o w his nam e as “Lon g-Gang Lin. ” The d ocket sho u ld b e cor rected as w ell.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1401 L ONG -G ANG L IN, 1 P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A200-112- 626

A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 28, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 23, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d S YKESa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Lo ng - GangLi n s o ug hta sy l um and w i thhol ding ofr em ova l bas ed on hi s wife’ s all ege d2 N o. 10

- 1401 f or ced abo rt i on. A n I m m i gr at i on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) deni ed r el i efb as ed o n a n a dve r se c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. The B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls (“ B oa rd ”) a ffirm ed . L in pet i ti o ns f o r r ev i ew o fthe Boa r d’ s dec i si o n, c o nt en di ng th at th e B oa rd err ed in a ffirm in g t h e IJ’s a d v e rs e c re d ibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. He a l so a r g ue s th atthe IJa nd Board f ai l ed to r eco gni ze the ine ffecti ve ass i sta nce o f h is c ou n se l a n d th at h e w as d en ied h is rig h t t o a fair hear i ng. La st ly, he c l ai m s that the IJ sho uld have i nquir ed i nto hi s co m petency to tes ti fy.

I . B AC KGR OUND Lin i s a nati ve and ci tize n ofthe Peopl e’ s Republ i c o f Ch i na. H e e nter ed the U ni ted S tat es on Au gu st 25, 20 05. The Departm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty (“D H S”) se rv ed hi m with a N oti ce t o A p p ea r an d charg ed that he was su bj ec t to r emov al

. Li n a dm i tt ed th e al l eg at ions in the N oti ce a nd appli ed f oras yl u m a n d w i thhol ding ofr em o va l

. He s ubmi tt ed su ppo r tingdo cument at i o n, i ncl ud i ng purpor ted abo rt ion a nd st er i l i zati on ce rt i fi cate s f or hi s wi fe . DHS s ub mi t t e d F o r e ns i c Do c ume ntLab o r ato r y ( “F DL”) f ind ings c o nc erni ngthe c er ti fi ca te s, a nd the IJ c o nt i nu e d the pr o c e e di ng s t o a l l o w Li n t o r espon d. T h er ea fte r, L in su b m itt ed a let te r fro m h i s a tt or n ey ch all engi ng the FDL find i ngs. O n A p ril 16 , 200 8, th e IJ h eld a h ea rin g a t w h ich L in te st ified . H e s ta te d th at t h e d oc u m en ta tio n a tt ac h ed to h is asy l um appli cati on was ge nuine. H e s aid t h at he had re vi ew ed the conte nts o fhi s a pp l i cati on a n d t h at eve ry th i ngi n i twa s t r ue . Lin wa s b o r n i n F uz ho u Ci t y, F uj i anN o. 10

- 1401 3 Pro vi nce, China i n 196 7 an d m ar ri ed Yong Chen i n 199 6. They have a daughter w ho was bo rn in 200 0. Li n sta ted that he had a s ec ond-g ra de educati on a nd co uld notr ead orwri te. H e work ed at a therm os f acto ryfro m 19 87 th ro u gh 19 96 , w h en h e w as fired for b ein g “ d isr u p tiv e.” H e e xplai ned that he would “s om eti m es hav[ e] tr oubl es w i th [ hi s] co-w or ke rs, l i ke

. . . co m i ng to bl ows. ” In 199 6, Lin o pened a di ner but was f or ced to cl ose i t in 200 1 t o m ak e ro om fo r n ew d ev elo p m en t. N eit h er L in n or h is wi fe h a s w o r k e d s i nc e 20 0 1 ; th e y h a v e s u p p o r t e d th e mselves an d their da u g h t e r on th eir savin gs. L in’s w ife st i l l l i ve s i n F uz ho u. Li n s ai d tha t he a nd hi s wi fe w an te d t o ha ve a s ec o nd c h i l d b ec au se it h ad be en “q u ite a w h ile” sin c e t h eir d au gh ter’s birth. H e “kn ew a li ttle bit” abou t C h in a’s one chi l d po licy , i ncl ud i ng tha t they ha d to apply f or perm i ssi on t o have a s eco nd chi l d. They di d not do so. H e a l so knew that i fth ey h ad a seco nd chi l d, they w oul d h ave to pay a s oci alco m pensati on fee w hi ch th ey cou ld n ot aff ord

. A ccord ing to L in, his w ife com pli ed w ith the r equi si te quarte rl y pr egnancyte sts , but he had no docum entat i on t o p ro ve i t. H e cl ai m ed th at h e t old h er n otto g o for t h e c h ec k-u p s, b u t s h e d id because the nei ghbo rh ood bi rth contr olo ffi ce t ol d her she had t o re port
. Lin t estified thathi s wife be cam e pr egnant w i th th e i r s e c o n d c h i l d i n S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 4 a n d t h a to n S e p t e mb e r 1 0 , p e o p l e fr o m th e n e i g hb o r h o o d c o mmi t t e e c a me to th eir h ou se an d d isc ov er ed th e pr eg n an c y . H e s aid that the c om m i tte e co nd ucted r andom check s a nd ch ec ks4 N o. 10

- 1401 when th eys us pec te d s o m eo ne m ightb e vi o l at i ngthe f am i l y pl anni ng l aw s. W hen questi oned r ega rdi ng how f aral ong hi s w i fe was i n the pregnancy, Li n sta ted that sh e was a l i tt l e m o r e th anthr ee months pr egna nta nd th a ts h e l o o k e d p r e g n a n t
. A c c o r d i n gt o L i n, th e me mber s o fthe c o m m i tt ee t o o khi s wi fe byf o r ce t o the ne i g hbor hood co m m i tte e o ffi ce. H e cl aim ed h e tri ed to r esi st and they “cam e t o som e physi calco ntact”

— “al m ost ” t o th e po i nt o f “u sing fi st s. ” H e di d no t i nj ur e an yon e, but sai d he thr eat ened to do s o. H e a dd ed that they pus he d e ac h o th er, b utdi d no t k no cke ac h othe r do wn. Lin s tat ed that he f ol l owed hi s wife t o the ne i ghborhood co m m itt ee o ffi ce wher e th er e was mor e “pu sh i ng ar o und. ” The y wer e i n the o ff ice f o r abo utt wenty min

utes. Li n cl ai m ed his w i fe was ev entual l y t ake n away to a l o ca l ho spi ta l t o ha ve a n abo r ti o n. W hen a sk ed i fs he had a ny oper ati on othe r than the abor ti on, h e respon d ed that she had not

. H e e xplai ned that he di d not go to the ho spi talwith hi s wife be cause the c om m i tte e m em ber s t ol d him thati t was hi s “ w i fe’ s . . . probl em on ly” an d if h e fo llow ed h er , he w ou ld be “in tr o ubl e to o . ” The IJ a sk ed Li n abo utthe purp ose o fthe st op atth e c om m i t t ee offic e o n th e w ay to th e h os p ita l. Lin co uld o fferno expla nati on o therthan that “they to ok m y w ife t h er e.” L i n l a t e r s t a t e d t h a tth e ab o r t i o n o c c u r r e d o n D e c e mber 25, 2005
. Sub seq ue nt ly, w he n asked w he n his w ife w as tak en to the hosp ital, he a nsw er ed, “Decem ber5, 2003
. ” The IJ asked Li n i fhe was s ure about the date , a n d L i n r e p l i e d tha t th e ab o r t i o n o c c u r r e d i n D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 4
. He the n c l a i med tha t“ the ma t t e r thath a p-N o. 10

- 1401 5 pen ed atthe ho spi ta l

. . . happene d the ne xtda y . ” The IJ s ou gh t c lar ifica tio n of th e d at es an d ev en ts . L in sa id th a tth e p e o p l e fr o m t he n e i g hb o r h o o d c o mmi t t e e c a me to hi s ho us e “Aug us t 20 s o m ethi ng2 00 4. ” The IJ i ndi ca te d tha t Li n was g i vingdi ffer en t an swe r s to the sam e quest i on a nd ag ai n ask ed hi m f orthe d at e on w hich the nei ghborhood co m m i tte e went to hi s ho use an d di sc o ve r ed hi s wi fe’ s pr egna nc y . Li n sa i d, “ 20 04
. ” The IJ as ked hi m to be m or e s peci fic, and Lin cl ai m ed that “t h ey d isc ov er [ed ] th e p re gn an c y in M ay 20 04 .” T h is p r o mp t e d th e IJ t o as k ho w th e me mb e r s o fth e c o mm itt ee d isc ov er ed th at h is w ife w as p re gn an t in M ay 20 04 . L i n c l aim ed th ath er p re gn an c y w as vis ible atthatt i m e. The IJ pr es se d fur th ero n the da te , a nd Li n s a i d t ha tth e o ffi c i a l s ca me t o h i s h o us e i n M a y t o “ do [a] re gu lar ch ec k” for c om p lian c e a t w h ich tim e h is w ife w as n otp re gn an t. H e s ta te d th at th ey ca m e a ga in i n Se p te m b er 20 04 and fo und herpre gnant. The IJ as ked i fa p r e g na nc y t e s twa s a dmi ni s t e r e d. Lin s a i d tha tu l tr asound technol ogywas used i n a ho spital. The IJ as ked wh e n th e ab o r t i o n o c c u r r e d ; L i n a n s we r e d , “ D e c e mberthe 5th, 20 04. ” The IJ inq uir ed w hetherLi n knew that w as the thi rd date he had gi ven, and Lin e xplai ned that he had r em em ber ed that t he date w as Decem ber5, 20 04
. Acco r di ngt o Li n, hi s wi fe di d no t ag r ee to the abor ti on bu t th at did not “m att erbec ause the deci si on w as m ad e b y t h e c om m itt ee .” L in st at ed th at h e h ad an x -ra y re p or t t o p ro ve th at h is wi fe ha d a n abo r ti o n. He c l ai m ed th e do ct o r sent the re portto hi s ho use in China a nd hi s w i fe m ai l ed i t t o h im
. H e cla im ed th at th e re p or t s aid th at p re gn an c y is6 N o. 10

- 1401 f orbi dd en and hi s wife i s no t a l l owed to bec om e pr egna n t
. Whe n th e IJ a s k e d i f a n y th i n g wa s d o n e t o pr ev en t hi s wife fro m b eco m i ng pre gnant aga i n, Li n sai d, “They didn’tdo a nythi ng. They j ust told us that no pre gnancy a n y m o r e . ” L in testifi ed that both he an d his w ife w ere ph y s i c a l l y c a pab l e o fh a v i nga no the r c hi l d. T h e IJ as ke d L in w h y h e fe ar ed ret u rn in g t o C h in a. L in r es po nd ed thathe “ woul d b e une m pl o y ed” a nd he co ul d no t fi nd wor kb ec au se he was une d uc at ed an d i l l i ter ate
. Li n adm i tte d that thi s was parto fthe re aso n he cam e t o the Unite d S tates and cl ai m ed the othe r pa r twa s the l o s s o fh i s s e c o nd c hi l d. As me nt i o ne d, Lin s ub mi t t e d d o c ume nt a t i o n t o s up porthi s cl ai m . I n hi s pol i ti calas yl um st ate m ent s ubm itte d w ith his ap p li cation, Lin w rote tha t his w ife becam e pr egnant f orthe seco nd ti m e in Se pte m b er 20 04 an d tha t o n De ce m be r 5 , 2 00 4, the f ami l y pl anni ng of f i ci al s c a me t o the i r h o me a nd t o o kh e r t o the h o s pi t al to have an abo rt i on a nd st er i l iza tio n . Li n had a l ett er an d t r an sl at i o n o fa r adi o l o g y e xa m i nati o n r epo r t, i ndica ti ng tha t Yong Ch en, hi s wife, had both f al l opi an tu b es st er ilize d . H e a lso su b m itt ed a let te r fro m h is wi fe in w hich s he s ai d tha t sh e be ca m e pr egna ntthe seco nd ti m e in Se ptem b er 2 004 and that she was ta ken on Decem ber5 to a ho spi talto have a for c ed abo rt i on an d steril izat io n . She claim ed that she rece ived the ab orti on a nd st er i l i zati on certi fi cate s fro m the offi ci al s o f the ne i ghborh oo d f am i l y pl anni ng o ffi ce l ate r that m o nth. F i na l l y, Li n pr o vi ded tr an sl at ed ce r ti fi ca tes ind icating th at an abortion an d steril ization w ere p er-N o. 10

- 1401 7 f or m ed on Yong Ch en on Decem ber 5, 20 04. DH S subm i tte d the fi ndi ng s o fa f o r en si c do cumente xa m i ne r who det er m i ne d tha t “[ i ] t i s unl i k ely tha t [ th e ab o r ti o n a nd st er i l i za ti o n c er ti fi ca te s] a r e g en ui ne . ” S ev er alr ea so ns w e r e g i v e n t o s up po r tthi s de t e r mi na t i o n. Lin r e s pond ed w i th a l ett erfro m hi s then-a tto rneyLi N an Chia ng. On A pri l 16 , 20 08, the IJ i ssued an o ra l deci si on. Based on Li n’s co ncessi on o fr em ovabi l i ty and ad m i ssi on o f alle ga tio n s in th e N ot ice to A p p ea r, th e IJ f o u n d h im r e mov a b l e a s c ha r g e d. S he the n c o ns i de r e d h i s a pp l i cati on f or asy l um and withhol ding of re m ova l

. The IJ too k i nto acco unt L in’s “l i m i ted educati on a nd al l ege d functi o na l i ll ite r ac y ” an d hi s demea no r whi l e te st i fy i nga nd f o u n d h im n otcr ed ible . Sh e n ot ed th at h e “ w as u n ab le t o p r o v i d e th e m o s t b a s i c o f i n f o r m a t i o n th a t f o r ms the v er y fou n d at ion o fhi s cl ai m ” a nd deter m i ned th at “[t ]h e in c on sis te n c ies in h i s t es tim on y a re so sign ific an t . . . th at th ey w ar ra n t t h is fin d in g of in c re d ibilit y.” The IJ ga ve seve ra l r eas ons f or h er ad ver se cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on. Fi rs t, Li n w as unabl e to provi de a pl au sibl e e xpl an at i o n a s to ho w the mem be r s o fthe nei ghborhood co m m i tte e i m m edi ate l y dete rm i ned that hi s wi fe wa s pr e g na nt
. Th e IJ a l s o r e l i e d o n the “s ubsta nti ali nconsist en c i es” i n the dates f orthe abor ti on th atLi n pr o vi ded, no tinghe ha d g iven thr ee di ffer en t d at es . Th e I J s aid th at sh e d id n otfind “a n yt h in g in [ Lin’ s] behav i or, dem eanor, bac kgr ound, et cete ra to sa y th at he can not rem em ber sim p le facts.” Ev en m ore i m p ortant to the IJ, tho ugh, was that Lin’ s wri tte n sta tem ents i nd i c a t e d h i s wi fe h a d n o t o n l y a f o r c e d a b o r t i o n b ut8 N o. 10

- 1401 al so an i nvol untaryst er iliza ti on; however, Li n never m enti oned the l att er proce du re w hi l e tes ti fyi n g, eve n w hen ask ed i fanythi ng o therthan the abor ti on was d one to her. L in even testifi ed t h a t he an d his w ife w ere physi cal l y abl e t o have anothe r chi l d. The IJ was al so tr oubl ed by the F DL r epor t that found the abo rt i on and ster i l i zati on ce rt i fi cate s s u sp ect, but she di d not giv e g re at w eig h t t o t h at rep or t o r c ou n se l’s re p ly ther eto
. S he f ound that the ce rt i fi cate s di d not dese rv e fullev i denti ar y w eight i n partbec ause Lin f ai l ed to pr o vi de ve r y de ta i l ed te st i m o ny, a nd no ne abo utthe st er i l i za ti o n. I n a ddi ti o n, the IJ no te d Li n’ s te st i m ony th athe ha d “ phy si ca l c o nt ac t” wi ththe f ami l y pl anni ng offi ci al s, wh i ch she vi ew ed w i th sk epti ci sm bec ause hi s wri tt enmate r i al s m ade no ment i o n o fi t. H avi ng f ound L i n not cre dibl e, the IJ deni ed his a pp l i cati on f or as ylu m an d w ith h old in g of re m ov al a n d ord e re d h im re m ove d to Ch i na. Lin app eal ed to the Boa rd. H e a sse rt ed that the IJ “g ave und ue weight to the advers e F D L fi nd i ngs. ” He al so cl ai m ed th atg i ve n h i s se co nd- g r ade e duca ti o n a nd “brain i njuries” fr om w ork in g at a state-ow ne d ente rpr i se i n C h i n a , th e IJ s h o u l d h a v e i n q u i r e d i n t o a nd gi ven wei ght “ to su c h inj uri es as perse cuti on. ” In an at ta ch ed affi dav i t, Li n a dded th athe ha d wor k ed i n a f acto ry wh er e he w as exposed to m er cury spray ed on ther m os bot tle s and thatbo th hi s par ents die d fr om c an c er aft er h av in g w or ke d a t th e fa c to ry “a ll th eir live s.” On J an ua r y 2 5, 2 01 0, the B oar d s um m ar i l y a ffi r m ed th e IJ ’ s deci si on. The B oa rd not ed that i n a J uly28 , 20 09,N o. 10

- 1401 9 deci si on i t had suspend ed Li n’s f or m erco unsel Li N an Ch ang fro m prac ti ci ng be f or e the Boar d, the i m m igr ati on cour t s , a nd the DHS

. Be c a us e Lin ha d r e t a i ne d n ew co uns elwho fi l ed th e appe ala nd a ppel l at e br i ef, the Board pro ceeded to deci de the appeal

. Li n peti tioned fo r re vi ew with thi s co urt.

II. A N A L Y S IS L in r aises s eve ra l ar gum ents on a pp eal

. H e fi rs t a rgues th atthe IJ e r r ed i n pl ac i ngi ns uffi ci en t wei g hto n the cer ti fi cate s o fhi s w i fe’ s abor ti on a nd st er i l i zati on pro ced u re s b as ed on p er c eiv ed d efic ien c ie s a n d lac k of d et ail i n hi s t est i m ony. H e cl ai m s that hi s docum entat i on
“ sh ou ld h ave serv ed the R E A L I D pu rp ose of corro bor ating o ther w ise i ncre dibl e t est i m ony. ” He ar gues th atthe IJ e r r ed in f ai l i ngt o pr o be i nt o hi s ba ck g r o und an d a l l eg ed ex po su r e to harm ful c he m i ca l s an d tha t th e Board e rr ed i n not add re ssi ng thi s a l l ege d exp lan atio n f orthe i nconsi ste nci es i n hi s t est i m ony. H e a l so ass er ts th atthe IJ a nd Bo ar d e r r ed i n f ai l i ngt o r ecogni ze the i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o fh i s c o u n s e l

. F i n a l l y, h e c l a i ms that the IJ er re d i n f ai l i ng to deter m in e w hetherhe was com petent to tes ti fy. Whe r e , a s h e r e , th e B o a r d su mma r i l y a ffi r ms , we re vie w th e IJ’s d ec isio n . Jua rez v . Ho lder, 59 9 F
. 3d 56 0 , 5 6 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )

. O u r r e v i e w i s d e fe r e n t i a l a n d we “a sko nl y w he th er[ th e dec i si o n] i s su ppo r te d b y ‘ r ea so nable, su bsta nt ial, and prob at iv e ev iden ce on the record consi dered as a w hol e. ’ ” Lin v. Ho lder, 6 20 F. 3d 807, 81 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Toptche v v. I
. N
. S. , 295 F. 3d 714, 72 010 N o. 10

- 1401 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) )

. W e “ w i l l r ev er se o nl y i fthe evi dence c om pel s a co ntra ryco ncl usi on. ” Su rga no va v. Ho lder, 61 2 F.3d 901 , 904 (7th C ir. 2010). I n o r dert o e st ab l i she l i g ibi l i ty fora sy l um a nd wi th

ho l di ngo fr emov al, Li n b ea r s the b ur deno fpr o ving tha th e i s a “ r e fug e e ” wi thin the m eani ngo f8 U. S

. C. § 1 10 1( a ) ( 4 2 ) (A ). 8 U .S.C . § 11 58 (b )(1) (B )(i); Lin , 62 0 F
. 3d at 81 0. T h u s, h e h ad to sh ow p as t p er se c u t i o n or a w ellf ounded fearo fper secuti on o n acco unt of hi s r ace, re l i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a pr ote cted s oci al g r o u p, orp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A)

. He alle ge s p er se c u tio n ba se d on C h in a’s co e r c i v e fa m ily pla nning pol ices and al l ege d practi ces com m i tte d against hi s wife, o n acco unt ofhi s p olit icalo pini on. Li n m ay pr o ve tha t he i s a r efug ee based on hi s o wn te st i m o ny alone ifthe IJfind s it is cred ibl e. 8 U
. S. C

. § 1158(b)(1)( B )( ii ). H owever, as the IJ r eco gni zed, “[ g] i ven the i m port ance ofthe app l i cant’ s cr edibi l i ty i n asy l um pro ceedi ngs, ‘ an ad verse cred ibi li ty fi nd ing w il l d oom the ap p li can t’s c l a i med e l i g ib i l i t y a s a ‘ r e fug e e . ’ ” Ha ssan v. Ho lder, 57 1 F. 3d 631, 637 ( 7th Cir

. 20 09) ( quoti ng M uso lla ri v. M uk a sey, 545 F.3d 505, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2008)). Befo re we eval uate the a dvers e cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati o n, we ne ed to a ddr es s so m e o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um ents. The go ver nm ent fi rs t a rgues that we m ay not consi de r L i n’s unexhausted cl ai m s that: ( 1) hi s co unsel w as i neffecti ve; ( 2) the IJ sho uld noth av e procee ded w i th the hear i ng be cause ofco unsel ’ s ineffec tive as si stance; (3) the IJ sho uld have deter m i ned Lin’ s co m petency to testify; ( 4) the IJerred i n i t s find ings regard ing L in’sN o. 10

- 1401 11

Th e f a i l ur e t o e x ha us t m a y be e x c us e d whe n a n a l i en rai se s 2 a c ons t i t ut i ona l c l ai m thatthe Boar d “woul d [ have be en ] pow erl es s to a d dress , ” but such f ail ure i s not ex cuse d w hen th e c la im is “ b a se d o n p ro c e d u r a l fa ili n g s th a t th e [B o a rd ]” co u ld h a v e r em ed ie d

. Pj et riv . G on zale s , 46 8 F .3d 478 , 48 1 (7th Cir. 2006)

. Lin’ s du e proces s cl aim s are the ty p e o f clai m s that the Bo ard could hav e add res se d

— the Bo ard could hav e re m a nded the c a s e t o the IJ f ora no the r h e a r i ng ; thu s , the e x c e pt i on does no tappl y. belated clai m of p hy sical con t a c t; (5) th e FD L report’s suspi ci on s of the st er i l i zati on ce rt i fi cate were base l ess ; and (6 ) the w eight gi ven t o the abor ti on a nd st er i l i zatio n ce rt ifica te s c on tr ad ict ed t h e p u rp os e o f th e R E A L ID A ct

— alle ge d ly to c or ro b or at e oth er w ise in c re d ib l e te st im on y. See 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 2 52 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( “ A c o u r tma y r e v i e w a fi nal or der of re m ova l onl y i f the al i en has ex h au sted al l adm i ni str ati ve re m edi es avai l abl e t o the al i en as o f rig h t.” ); M ura to ski v. Ho lder, 62 2 F.3d 824, 830-31 (7th Cir. 2010 ) ( denyi ng peti ti on fo r re vi ew wh er e a l i en f ai l ed to exhaust a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es)

. “ ‘ The d u ty to ex ha us t i nc l ude s th e obliga ti o n t o fi r stpr es en t to the [ Board] any ar gum ent a gai nst the r em ova l o rderas to w hi ch th e Boar d i s e m pow er ed to gr ant the al i en m eani ngful re l i ef

. ’ ” M urat os ki, 6 22 F
. 3d at8 30 ( quo ting G ha ffa r v. M uk a sey, 551 F. 3d 651, 654 ( 7th C ir. 2 008)). Lin’ s fa ilu re to exhaust the c l ai m s i denti fi ed abo ve prev e n t s u s fr o m r e v i e win gth e m. 2 The go ver nm ent c onte nd s that the exhausti on r equi re m en t is j u ris d ict ion al. W e h av e s aid th at it is n ot
. See, e . g. , Issaq v. Ho lder, 617 F. 3d 962, 968 ( 7th C ir. 20 10)12 N o. 10

- 1401 ( f a i l u r e t o e x h a u s t “ i s n o t
. . . a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r ul e i n t he str i ct s ense . . . [ but] a case - proce ssi ng r ule thatl i m i ts th e argu m en ts available to an ali en i n th is court”). The go ver nm ent ne xt ar gues that Lin has w ai ved se ver al ch al l en g es to th e IJ ’ s dec i si o n, i nc l udi ng m o st o fthe reaso ns f or the advers e cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng as w el l as h is cl ai m tha t th e wei g htg i ve n to th e al l eg ed ab o r ti o n a nd st er i l i za ti o n c er ti fi ca te s con tr adi ct s th e pur po se o fthe RE A L I D Act. The “st ate m ent of f acts and pr oce du ra l hi stor y” sect i on of Lin’ s openi ng bri ef m enti ons th e fo ll owing re aso ns supporting the IJ ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nat i o n: ( 1 ) Li n wa s un a b l e t o pr o v i de a pl a us ib l e expl anat i o n a s to ho w th e n e i g hb o r h o o d c o mmi t t e e me mb e r s de term ined that his w ife w as p regn an t; (2) L in’s w ri tte n sta tem ents i nd i cate d his wife was f or ced to u n d er go st er iliza tio n, bu t L in n ev er m en tio n ed it w hen te sti fyi ng; and ( 3) Li n fi rst c laim ed that he had “p h ys ica l co n ta c t” w ith th e fa m ily p lan n in g off icia ls w h en te st i fyin g. B u t t h e b rie f on ly m en tio n s t h es e in passi ng. M er el y m enti oni ng tha t the IJ m ade thes e fi nd i ngs without a dvanci ng anyar gum ent s up port ed by ci tat i ons to re l evantautho ri ty i s insuffi ci ent t o chal l enge th os e fin d in gs on ap p ea l. Se e, e . g. , Ha xh iu v . M uk a sey, 519 F. 3d 685, 69 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (“F edera l Rule o f Appel l at e Pr o ce dur e 28 r equi r es an ar g um en t co ns i st i ng ofm or e than a gener al i zed as ser ti on o fer ro r, with c i tati o ns t o s uppo r tinga utho r i ty
. ”) ( quo ta ti o ns a nd c i ta ti o ns om itted ); A sere v. Go nz a les , 439 F.3d 378 , 3 8 1 ( 7th Cir. 20 06). Li n has no t m ade any cog ent a rgum ent t o ch all enge these r eas ons f orthe advers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. T h u s, h e h as w aiv ed an y c h alle n ge to th em . B u t e ve n ifN o. 10

- 1401 13 he ha d no t wa i v e d the s e c ha l l e ng e s , we wo ul d not d i s t u rb th e IJ ’ s c r e d ib i l i t y fi n d i n g f o r th e r e as o ns we d iscus s later. Lin has waive d ot h er a rgum ents too
. H e cl ai m s that the abor ti on a nd st er i l i zati on ce rt i fi cate s he subm i tte d “sh ou ld h ave serv ed the R E A L ID A ct’s p urp ose of corr o bo r at i ngo th er wi se i nc r edible te st i m o ny ” an d tha t th e IJ ’ s dec i si o n t o g i ve them l es s wei ghtb ec au se o fthe i nc o ns i s t e nc i e s i n hi s t e s t i mon y c o nt r a v e ne s the p ur pose of the A ct. Bu t he of fe r s n o aut hority to sup p ort th es e ar g um en ts. The f ai l ur e to a dequa te l y de ve l o p a nd su p p or t t h e s e a r gu m en ts res u lts in w aiv er . Se eJi n v . H o lder, 572 F.3d 392 , 397 (7th C ir
. 2009); A sere, 43 9 F
. 3d at 381 ( ci ti ng Aja yi v . Ara m a rk B us. Serv s. , 33 6 F
. 3d 520, 52 9 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 03 ) (“It is n oten ou gh for [p lain tiff] m er ely to re ferge nera l l y t o these act i ons i n h er s ta tem ent o f fa c t s ; . . . sh e m u st id en tify th e le ga l issu e, ra ise it in th e ar g um en t se ct i o n o f he r br i ef, an d su pport her ar g um en t wi thper tine ntautho r i ty
. ”)

. I n a ny e ve nt, “ unde r the RE A L I D A ct, co rr obo ra ti ng ev i den ce m ay be r equi re d eve n i fthe appli cant i s cred ible. ” R a ph eal v. M uk a sey, 5 3 3 F
. 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c i t i n g8 U
. S

. C. § 1158 (b)( 1)(B)(i i) ). Tur ni ngt o the IJ ’ s adverse c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n, Li n’ s o nl y a r g um en t i s th atthe IJ pl ac ed insu ffi ci en t w ei ght o n the abor ti on an d ster i l i zati on ce rt i fi cate s. Yet th e IJ was e nt i tl ed to g i ve the m what ev erwei g hts he thought they deser ved i n l i ght o fal l the evi de n c e. S ee Weng v. Ho lder, 5 93 F
. 3d 66 , 7 2 & n. 5 ( 1s t Ci r . 2 01 0) ( co nc lu d in g t h at d oc u m en ta ry ev id en c e d id n otco m p el a14 N o. 10

- 1401 fi nd i ng o fper secuti on “ especi al l y in the abse nce o f cred ibl e testim ony on [the alien’s] p art”); F e to v. G o nz a les , 43 3 F .3d 90 7, 9 1 1 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ) (st at in g t h at th e IJ w as enti tl ed to weigh docum entary e vi denc e al ong w i th o th ere vi den ce in the c as e)

. The IJ r ea so ne d tha t th e certifi ca t e s w ere “no t ent itl ed to full evi d en tiary w eig h t” be c au se L in “ d id n otp ro vid e v er y d et aile d te st im ony, ” par ti cul ar l y with re spect to h i s wife’ s s ter i l i zatio n . A l a c k o f d et ail is a “m ajor c lu e” th at so m eo n e is lyin g. M ito n d o v. M uk a sey, 523 F.3d 784 , 788-89 (7th C ir. 20 08 ). In d ee d , L in d id n otp ro vid e m u c h d e t ail a b ou t h is wi fe’ s ab o r ti o n, s te r i l i za ti o n, o r the e ven ts s ur r o undi ng these pro ced u res. Even i fthe cer ti fi cate s s houl d have be e n g i v e n mor e we i g ht, the y c o nt a i n no thi ng to su ggest th at th ese p roced ure s w ere forced up on L in’s w i fe. W e fi nd no re aso n to di sturb the IJ ’ s w ei ghi ng o f the c er ti fi cate s. A nd in the end, ev en Li n acknow l edges the di scr epanci es an d inco ns i st en ci es i n h i s te st i m o ny a nd s uppo r ting docu m en ts. I nd eed, he no tes the exi ste nce o fa “r em ar kabl e nu m b er of i nconsi ste nci es” i n hi s t est i m ony. Yet he o ffe r s n o a r g ume ntwh y s uc h un expla i ne d d i s c r e pan ci es coul d not s up portthe IJ ’ s a dvers e cr edibi l i ty de t e r mi na t i o n. Anys uc h ar gu men ti s the r e f o r e wa i v e d. Ji n , 5 7 2 F
. 3 d a t 3 9 7 & n . 3
. ( He a t t e mpt s t o o ffe r an e xp lan at ion , bu t t h at effo rtfails , as w e a d d re ss lat er .) Besi des, an IJ m ay proper l y b ase a c re dibi l i ty deter m i nat ion on “t h e c on sis te n c y b et w ee n th e a p p lica n t’s

. . . wri tt en a nd o r als ta te m en ts
. . . [ an d] the i nt erna l c o ns i s t e nc y o feach s uc h s t a t e men t
. . . . ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 15 8(b )(1) (B )(iii); s e e, e . g. , Has s an , 5 71 F
. 3d at6 37( “[ T] heN o. 10

- 1401 15 IJ m ay rely on inc ons istenc ies betw een the ap p li can t’s he ar i ngt es ti m o ny a nd e ar l i ers ta te m en ts
. ”)

. F ur th er, the ad d itio nof f a c tu al a ss er tio n s in an ap p lica n t’s te st imon y tha twe r e n o ti nc l ud e d in the wr i tte n as y l um a ppli cati on ca n supp or t a n adver se cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ng. Has s an , 571 F.3d a t 6 3 8-3 9 (d efe rrin g t o a d ve rs e c re d ibi l ity det er m i na ti o n whe r e al i ent es ti fi ed ab o utf o ur ev en ts of p er se c u t i o n bu t o m itt ed th em from h is w rit te n a p p lica tio n ); X ia o v. M uk a sey, 54 7 F
. 3d 712, 71 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( upho l di nga dve r se c r edibi l i tyfi ndi ng w here al i en f ai l ed to d isc lose the abo rt i on duri ng her ai rpor t inter vi ew and cr edibl e feari nter view ); Son g Wang v. Keisler, 5 05 F
. 3d 615, 6 21 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( upho l di ng advers e cr edibi l i ty deter m in ati on wh er e a l i en bas ed hi s a sylum appl i ca ti o n o n h i s wi fe’ s st er i l i za ti o n a nd om i tte d m enti on o f a fo rce d abor ti on a nd o fa fi ght that occu rred at the h osp ital before his w ife had an ab ortion). L in not on ly gave i nc ons istent d a tes for his w ife’s abor ti on but al so om i tte d a ny m enti on of her steri l i zatio n d u rin g h is t es tim on y. T h e IJ rea s on ab ly c ou ld have expected thatLi n w oul d test i fy about eve nts that go t o t h e h e ar t o f h is c laim

. Se eSo ng Wang, 50 5 F
. 3d at 621. H e eve n contr adic ted hi s cl ai m byte sti fyi ng tha t sh e w as p h ys ica lly c ap ab le of h a vin g c h ild re n . In ad d ition, Li n’s cl ai m o fphysi calco ntact w i th the f am i ly pla nning offi ci al s fi rs t s urf aced duri ng hi s t est i m ony. Fu rt h er , L in w as u n ab le t o p ro vid e s ign ifica n t d et ails ab o utthe abo r ti o n, s te r i l i za ti o n, a nd the phy si calc o ntact atthe nei ghborhood co m m i tte e o ffi ce. H e f ai l ed to offer a n a d equate and consi ste nt expl anati on a s t o how the f am i l y pl anni ng o fficials knew hi s wife was16 N o. 10

- 1401 pregnant, and he had no ex p lan ati on f orthe bri efst op atthe ne i g hb o r ho o d o ffi ce . The se wer e j us t so m e o fthe i nconsi ste nci es; t h er e were m or e. Li n bor e the bur den ofexpl ai ni ng to the IJ ’ s s ati sf acti on the i nconsi ste nci es i n hi s t est i m ony and docum ents

— som e o fwh i ch go to th e he ar t of h is c l a i m . See Fed o sseeva v. G o nz a les , 49 2 F.3 d 84 0, 84 6 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. H e d id n otd o s o. E ve n L in ac k no wl edg es th at “a s i ng l e i nc o ns i st en cyg o i ngt o the hear t o fan a syl um cl ai m m ay be grou n d s foran a dvers e cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on. ” ( Br. 16 ci ti ng H ua ng v. G o nz a les , 45 3 F. 3d 94 2, 9 45

- 46 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) )

. Li n h as g i ve n us no r eas on t o disturb the IJ ’ s a dvers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. L in argue s th a t he d id n ot ha ve an opp ortu nity for a fulland fa ir hear i ng. H e s ubm i ts that the IJ sho uld have pr o be d i nt o hi s ba ck g r o und a nd e xpo su r e t o ha r m ful chem i cal s, wh i ch h e c laim s “ w re ake d havoc on [ hi s] cogni ti ve abi l i ti es. ” He com pla i ns thatthe Board did not add re ss thi s e xplanat i on f orhi s inconsi ste nt te sti m ony. H e a l so cl ai m s that the IJ sho uld nothave pro ceeded w ith th e hea ring given cou ns el’ s all eged obviou s i ne ffecti venes s. Due pr o ce ss r equi r es tha t anali enb e aff o r ded a m ea nin gfu l op p or tu n ity to p re se n t a cla im , B a rrad a s v. Ho lder, 58 2 F .3d 75 4, 76 7 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); C apric v. A shcroft, 35 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 8

- 8 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e mph a s i z i n gi ti s t he o ppo r tu ni ty t o pr es en t a cl ai m tha t i s pr o te ct ed) , b ut “im p os es n o ob liga tio n to en su re th at th e a lien ac tu ally m ake s a m eani ngful prese ntati on, ” C apric, 355 F. 3d 1089

. We e x a mi n e “ wh e th e r, gi v e n th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u mst an ce s, [ th e al i en ] had a ful l a nd f ai r o ppo r tu ni tyt o putN o. 10

- 1401 17 on hi s ca se. ” Barradas , 58 2 F
. 3d at 76 7. L i n had such an op p ortuni ty. The re cor d doe s not sugge st that the IJ in te rfe re d w it h L in ’s a b ility to p re se n t h is c laim . L in coul d have t est i fied about hi s cl ai m ed exposure to h ar m fu l ch e m i c als , bu t h e o m itt ed an y m en tio n of th is i n h i s testi m o ny a nd a sy l um a ppl i ca ti o n. Be ca us e he neverbr ought thi s m att erto the IJ ’ s a tte nti on, the IJ had no reas on to su sp ect th at an all eged che m ical ex p osu re caused Li n’s in ab i l i ty to re m em bersi m ple detai l s. T h er e c er ta in ly is n o b as is for co n c lu d in g t h at L in ’s t es tim o ny tha t he wor k ed te n y ea r s i n a f ac tory m an ufactu rin gthe r m o s bo tt l es s ho ul d ha ve b ee n a c l ue t o the IJ tha t he wa s e xp o s e d t o ha r mful c he mi c a l s or that thos e che m i cal s ca used a br ai n i nj ury w h ich affecte d hi s abi l i ty to tes ti fy t ruthfull y o r accura tel y. A nd abs e n tn o t i c e o fL i n’ s al l e g e d e x p o s u r e t o h a r mfu l c h e mi cal s, ther e was no re aso n f orthe IJ to i nquir e further into th e m atter. Lin a l so had t h e o pp or tuni ty to expla i n the i nconsi stenci es i n hi s t est i m ony to the Board. But the Board i s no t p er m itt ed t o en ga ge in fa c t-fin d in g on ap p ea l. See Figue r as v. H o lder, 5 74 F
. 3d 43 4, 4 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ; 8 C. F
. R. § 1 00 3.1 (d )(3) (iv )

. L i n d id n otm ov e t o re m an d to th e IJ orr eopen the pro ceedi ngs forco nsi derat i on o fev i dence ofh is back gr ound and exposur e t o harm ful chem i cal s. Thu s, the Board did not er r i n decl i ni ng to ad d re ss L in ’s p ro ffer ed ex p lan at ion for t h e inc on sis te n c ies in hi s t est i m ony. Regar ding w hetherthe IJ shoul d have pro ceeded w i th the he ar i ng g i ven the “obvi ous” i neffec tiv e a ssi sta nce ofLin ’s c ou nsel, Li n did notexhaust thi s cl ai m . That18 N o. 10

- 1401 ba r r i e r a s i de , Li n s t i l l c o ul d no t pr e v a i l

. He a r g ue s t hat hi s c a s e i s l i ke Gjeci v. G o nz a les , 451 F.3d 416 , 424 (7th C ir. 2006) , wh er e we concl ud ed that by proce edi ng with the m er i ts hear i ng, the IJ depri ve d the al i en o fa fund am ental l y f ai r hear i ng. But that case i s di sti nguish able: Gj ec i ’ s co uns elwi th dr ew; the IJ r efus ed to g r an t a co ntinu an ce to all ow Gj eci to obta in ne w cou ns el; G j eci’s co uns elr et aine d do cument s ce nt r alt o Gj ec i ’ s cl ai m ; a nd Gj ecidi d not fu l l y c om prehend the conse quences o f h is cou n se l ’ s w ith d ra w al. Id. a t 42 1- 24
. F ur th er m o r e, the re cor d dem onst ra ted prej ud i ce

— the IJ pl aced g re at w eighto n the evi dence thatthe docum ents had been f al si fi ed an d s ai d he woul d ha ve b ee n incli ne d t o g r an t Gj ec i’s p et itio n if th e d oc u m en ts w er e au th en tic
. Id. at 42 0, 4 23
. Her e, Li n was r epr es en ted b y c o uns eldur i ng the pr oce edi ngs; the IJ gr anted hi m a continuance to al l ow a r espon se t o the F DL fi nd i ngs a nd hi s co unsel subm i tte d a r esponse ; and the IJ di d n ot p l ace gr eat w ei ght o n the fi nd i ngs. Lin furthercl ai m s that i t was hi ghl y unl i kel y that hi s co uns el was ca pabl e o fpro vi ding anythi ng o ther th an i nc om p eten t rep resen tation at th e tim e o f t h e IJ’ s hear in g. H e fi rs t co ntends thatthe l ack ofco m pli ance w i th the r e- fi nger pri nti ng o rderwas hi s co un se l’s f aul t. The IJ n o t e d th a ts h e d i d n o ts e r v e wr i t t e n i n s t r u ct i o ns about the r e- fi nger p rint i ng. A nyw ay, she did notdeem Lin’ s cl ai m aba nd oned, but al l owe d L i n and his co unsel to proce ed. Thus, the bel at ed fi nger pri nti ng di d not pr ej udi ce Li n. Se cond, Li n argues thatco unsel co uld notpro du ce an y e x p lan at ion for t h e “ gr o s s . . . d isc re p an c ies ” in h isN o. 10

- 1401 19
tes ti m ony, pre sum abl y a r efer ence to counsel’s f ai l ure to ra ise th e a l l e ge d br ain inju ry cla im . B u t L in w h olly fails to substa nti at e his cl ai m thatthe al l ege d exposure to m er c u ry co u ld h av e c au se d th e g ro ss d isc re p an c i e s in hi s te st i m o ny . He do es no t, f o r e xa m pl e, o ffera ny ex p er t e vid en c e t h at ex p os u re to m er c u ry su c h a s L in had

— w hatev er thatm ay have been; we don’t know b ec au se h e h as offe re d n o e vid en c e o f it

— c ou l d cause so m eo n e t o for ge t s im p le d et ails . So e ve n n ow L in ha s no t su bs ta nt i at ed hi s cl ai m tha t hi s w o r ka t th e ther m albo ttl i ng pl an t an d c laim ed e x p osur e t o m er c u ry “e x p lain s” th e s u b st an tia l inc on sis te n c ies in his testim ony . T h u s , i t is far from clear that cou ns el’ s fail ure to produce ev i dence ofthi s a l l ege d explanat i on f o r the gross t es ti m o ni aldi sc r epa nc i es woul d a m o unt to i neffecti ve ass i sta nce. Ano th e r a r e a o fi n e ffe c t i v e n e s s , L i n a l l e g e s , wa s c o uns e l ’ s wa i v e r o fc l o si ng a r g u me n t
. B u tL i n h a s n o ts h o wn an y p rej u d ice res u lte d from th e la c k of a rg u m en t. In addi ti o n, Li n a r g ue s th atthe t i m i ngo fe ve nt s l ea di ng to the di sci pli nary a cti on a gai nst Chi ang s ubstanti ate s hi s cl ai m o fi ne ffec ti ve a ss i stan ce. Acco r di ngt o Li n, “[ t] he A R DC [ th e I l l i no i s Att o r ne y Re g i st r at i o n a nd D isc ip lin ar y C o m m iss ion ] fou n d h im inc om p et en t in hand l i ng ca ses befor e Ap ri l o f20 08, ” which was w hen the IJ hel d th e h ea ring i n thi s ca se. Yet Lin has o ffer ed no e vi dence to subst antiate thi s cl ai m . W e do know that on J uly28 , 20 09, the Board s uspend ed Chian g fr om prac ti cing be f o r e th e Bo ar d, th e i m m i g r at i o n co urts, and DH S pu rs uant to 8 C.F

. R. § 1 003. 103( a)

. But re prese ntati on byco unsel wh ose l i cense has been suspended does not autom atic ally r ender that ass i sta nce perse20 N o. 10

- 1401 in effe c tiv e. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 934 F. 2d 847, 85 1- 52 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)

. The f act that Ch i ang m ay have be eni ne ffec ti ve i n o th ermatt er s do es no t di r ec t th e c on c lu sio n th at h e w as ine ffec tiv e h er e. Ins te ad , L in w oul d h av e to sho w thatan e rr oro r om i ssi on by Ch i a ng pr ej ud i c e d hi s c a s e . He ha s no t do ne so . M or eo ve r, th e IJ cit ed a h o st of re as on s fo r fin d in g L in no t cr edibl e. Th e recor d s ho ws tha t Li n h ad a ful l a nd f a i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n th i s c l a i m. Fi na l l y, Lin a r g ue s tha tthe IJ s ho ul d h a v e de t e r m i ned w hetherhe was co m petent to tes ti fy. H e a sse rt s that hi s v er y l im i ted educati on a nd al l ege d brain i nj uri es affecte d his c og n i ti ve abi l i ti es and com petence to tes ti fy, n oth is c re d ibilit y. T h e f a ilu re to ex h au st as id e, L in coul d not pre vai l o n thi s a rgum en t. W hen an a l i en r ai se s th e i ss ue o fhi s co m pet en cywi ththe IJ, the IJ g en e r a l l y i s n o te xp e c t e d t o sua spo nte i ni ti ate a com petency ev alu at ion
. Se e, e . g. , M uno z-M ons al vev. M ukasey, 55 1 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1stCi r. 20 08)

. L in w as r epres ented byco unsel at the h ea ring befor e the IJ ; co unsel co uld have r ai sed the i ssue ofLi n’s co m petency, but did not

. Fur ther m or e, alt h ou gh L in ga ve inc on sis te n t a n s w er s a n d w as u n ab le to re cal l detai l s o fke y e vents , t h er e is nothi ng to sugges t that thi s was due to a lac k o fco m petency ra ther than, as the IJ f ound, a l ack ofcr edibi l i ty.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fo r th e fo re go in g re as on s, th e p et itio n for re vie w is D ENI ED .
12- 23- 10