FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 3, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 58 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 72 -4 41 -1 10 MAROUN ZEIDAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 3 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, ANDERSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mar ou n Zei da n s eek s re vi ew of th e Immig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) an d B oa rdofIm

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) res pe ct iv e d eci si on s d en y in g 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. In h is pr o s e bri ef, Zei da n arg ue s tha t the BIA: (1) erre d i n a ffi rm in g the IJ’s fi nd in g t ha t h e fai le d t o de m on st rat e p as t p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n h is Ch ris ti anrel ig io n o r hi s p ol it ic al op in io n; (2) erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t h is cred ib le tes ti m on y was i ns uf

fic ie ntto sa ti sf y hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r as y lu m ba se d o n c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s, an d i n refu si ng to fin d t ha t the IJ was im pr op erl y in flu en cedby Z ei da n’s h un ge r strik e an d afor ce-f

eedord er i ss ue d b y

a U.S. Dis tri ctCo urt; (3) erre d i n re fu si ng to fin d th atZeid ansat is fie d h is burd ento sh ow a c red ib le fear of f utur e p ers ecu ti on ; an d (4 ) erre d i n uph ol di ng th e IJ ’s rul in g t he Zeid anwas i ne li gi bl e fo r as y lu m rel ie f ba se d o n h is pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on . Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ In so far a s the Bo ardad op ts th e IJ ’s reas on in g, we wil l re vi ew th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.” Id. Here, th e BIA ag reedwith re as on in g of th e IJ , so we co ns id er b ot h d eci si on s. To the ex te ntth atth e d eci si on un de r rev ie w was b as edon a le ga l de te rm in at io n, re vi ew is de no vo . Moh ammed v. Ash cr of

t , 26 1 F .3d12 44 , 12 47 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Factua l d et erm in at io ns , in cl ud in g c red ib il ity an d a sylum 2el ig ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , are re vi ewedun de r th e “ subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t.” Ku evi ak oe v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 7 F .3d13 01 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e wil l affi rm if the de ci si on is 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 f rec or d. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3d at12 84 . This st an da rdis “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l,” a ndwe ha ve he ldth ata de ci si on canbe rev ers edon ly “ if t he ev id en ce co m

pe ls a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Ku evi ak oe , 56 7 F.3 d a t 1 30 4 (quo ta ti on om it te d) ; Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3d at12 84 . Und er thi s t es t, we “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). The fa ctth atev id en ce i n t he reco rdm ay

als o s up po rt aco nc lu si on co nt rary to the admin is tra ti ve fin di ng s i s n ot en ou ghto jus ti fy

a rev ers al . Id

. I. Pas t Pe rs ecu ti on App li cat io n o f th e “ la w of t he cas e” d oc tri ne is subjec t t o de no vo rev ie w. Tr an sa mer ic a L ea si ng

, Inc . v. Ins t. o

f Lo nd on Underwr it er

s , 43 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 31 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) .

Und er the “ la w of t he cas e” d oc tri ne , th e “ fin di ng s o f factan d c on cl us io ns of l aw by an ap pe ll at e co urt ar e ge ne ral ly bin di ng inall subs eque ntpro ceed in gs inth e sa m e cas e in th e tr ia l co urt o r ona la te r ap pe al .” W es tb ro ok v. Za nt , 74 3 F .2d76 4, 7 68 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )

3(quo ti ng Dor se y v. Co nt in en ta l Ca su al tyCo . , 73 0 F .2d 67 5, 6 78 (11 th Cir . 19 84 )). Thi s ju di ci al ly creat ed do ctrin e [] serv es sev eral im po rta ntpu rp os es , in cl ud in g (1 ) in su rin g t ha t l it ig at io n o n a n i ss ue wil l co m e to an en d, (2 ) di sc ou rag in g “ pa ne l s ho pp in g” at t he cir cu it co urt l ev el , and(3) ass ur in g t he ob ed ie nc e o f lo wer co urts to th e d eci si on s o f ap pe ll at e co urts . W es tb ro ok , 74 3 F .2dat 7 68 n. 6 ; se e Pia mbi no v. Bai le y , 75 7 F .2d 11 12 , 11 20 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The d oc tri ne do es no t ex te ndto ev ery is su e th atco ul d b e ev er ra is edina gi ve n li ti ga ti on bu t ra th er i s l im it edto th os e is su es pre vi ou sl y de ci de d; th e la w is cle ar, h owe ve r, th atth e la w of t he cas e d oc tri ne “ co m

pr eh en ds th in gs de ci de d b y ne ces sa ry im pl ic at io n a s wel l as th os e d eci de d e xp li ci tl y .” W he el er v. Ci tyof Plea sa nt Gro ve , 74 6 F .2d14 37 , 14 40 (11 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (p er cu ria m) (em ph as is om it te d; qu ot at io n om it te d) . Hea th co at

v. Pot ts , 90 5 F .2d36 7, 3 70 -7 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Bec au se th e BIA an d t he Uni te d S ta te s C ou rt o f App eal s fo r th e Nin th Ci rcu itex pr es sl y

de te rm in edinZeid an ’s pre vi ou s ap pe al s tha t the ori gi na l IJ was co rrec t i n fi nd in g tha t Zei dan h adfai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n t o p ro ve pa st pe rs ecu ti on—b ecau se he fai le d t o t es ti fy cred ib ly abo utth e ev en ts he cit edin supp ort o f hi s 1 99 2 a sylum cla im —the IJ a ndBIA in Zeid an ’s subs eque nt pr oc eed in gs pro pe rly rul edth atZeid anco ul d n otre-l it ig at e th e is su e o f pa st pe rs ecu ti on . On Nov em

be r 14 , 20 01 , th e o rig in al IJ f ou ndZeid anto be “ who ll y in cred ib le ” o n m at te rs th atwentto th e h eartof Zei da n’s cl ai m forasylu m

or withh ol di ng of r em ov al , in cl ud in g t he pu rp orte d p as t p ers ecu ti on he su ffer ed . 4Thi s ru li ng was a ffi rm edby the BIA an d t he Nin th Cir cu it . Se e Zei da n v .

Ash cr of t , 11 9 F ed . App ’x 88 , 89 -9 0 (9 th Cir . 20 04 ) (unp ub li sh ed ). Co ns is te nt with o ur pre ced en t, Zei da n was pre cl ud edfro m lat er ar gu in g t ha t h e su ffer edpa st pe rs ecu ti on gi ve n t he adve rs e ru li ng on pa stpe rs ecu ti on inhi s ea rli er i m m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs , andth e IJan d B IA di d n oterr i n s o ru li ng . II. Asylum An al ie n m ay

qu al ify for as y lu m

by pres en ti ng cred ib le ev id en ce s ho win g

“ (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on onacco un t o f [h is ] po li ti cal op in io n o r an y ot he r pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , or (2 ) a ‘well- fo un de d fe ar’ th athi s p ol it ic al op in io n o r an y ot he r pr ot ect edgro un d wi ll cau se futur e p ers ecu ti on .” Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F.3 d 1 22 6, 1 23 0- 31 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). “ [P]erse cu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t, requi rin g m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al haras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n, [an d] m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on .” Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 12 31 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) ; se e al so Djo nd a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 51 4 F .3d11 68 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th at36 -h ou r de te nt io n, b eat in g, an d th reatof a rres t d idno t am ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on ). Pro te ct edgro un ds are ra ce, 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. Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 39 2 F .3d43 4, 4 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). If subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g t ha t an ali ensu ffer edpa rti cu la r ha rm s fo r rea so ns 5ot he r th anrace , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, etc. , th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w wil l b e d en ie d.

Se e, e.g . , Sc he er er

v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 5 F .3d13 11 , 13 15 -1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . If the pe ti ti on er “ can no t s ho w pas t p ers ecu ti on , th enth e p et it io ne r m us t de m on st rat e a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on th atis bo th subjec ti ve ly ge nu in e an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Rui z v. U.S . Att’ y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 57 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ The subjec ti ve co m po ne ntcanbe pro ve d ‘by the ap pl ic an t’s cred ib le tes ti m on y

th athe or s he ge nu in el y

fear s p ers ecu ti on ,’ whi le th e o bjec ti ve co m po ne nt‘ can be ful fil le d e it he r by est ab li sh in g p as t p ers ecu ti on or t ha t h e o r sh e h as a go odreas on to fearfutur e p ers ecu ti on .’ ” Id. (qu ot in g Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3d at12 89 ). The p et it io ne r m us t es tabl is h “ th atth ere i s ‘a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th at he or s he wou ldbe si ng le d o utin di vi du al ly for p ers ecu ti on ,’ or t ha t h e is a m em be r of , or i s i de nt ifi edwith, a g ro up th atis subjec te d t o apa tt ernor p ract ic e of pe rs ecu ti on .” Djo nd

a , 51 4 F .3dat 1 17 4 (c it in g 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) (2 )(i ii )). Ina withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im , an a li ensh al l n otbe rem ov edto a co un try if h is li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou nd . INA § 2 41 (b )(3 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). The ali enm us t s ho w th atit is “ m or e li ke ly than n ot[he ] wil l b e p ers ecu te d o r to rtu redup on be in g re tu rn edto [h is ] co un try.” Se

pu lv ed a, 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2 (c it at io n o m it te d) . An al ie n m ay m ak e th is sh owi ng intwo way s. Fi rs t, an ali enm ay est ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti on 6ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d, i n wh ic h c as e a reb ut tabl e p res um pt io n i s cr eat ed th athi s l ife or f

reed om wou ldbe th reat en edif s he returne d t o h is co un try. Men do za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Seco nd ly, an al ie n m ay qu al ify for wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al if h e “ cande m on st rat e a fu ture thr eat to hi s l ife or f

reed om ” b as edona pr ot ect edgro un d. Id. To b e el ig ib le forCAT rel ie f, anali enm us t d em on strat e th at , if re m ov edto hi s co un try of o rig in , itis m or e li ke ly tha n n othe wou ldbe to rtu redby, orwith t he acqui es cen ce o f, go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s ac ti ng un de r co lo r of law. 8 C.F.R. § § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ), 20 8.1 7( a), 2 08 .18 (a)( 1) . To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for CAT rel ie f, th e ap pl ic an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ld be to rtu redif re turn edto hi s co un try. Reyes -S an ch ezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 36 9 F .3d 12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); se e 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .16 (c)( 2) . “ Tortur e” i s d efi ne d a s

“ an y actby whi chsev ere p ai n o r su ffer in g. . . is in te nt io na ll y in fli ct edon a pe rs on fo r. . . any reas on ba se d o n d is cri m in at io n o f an y ki nd , when su chpa inor s uf feri ng is in fli ct edby or atth e in st ig at io n o f orwith t he co ns en t o r acqui es cen ce o f a publ ic off ic ia l o r ot he r pe rs on act in g i n a n o ffi ci al cap aci ty.” 8 C.F.R. § 2 08 .18 (a)( 1) . The b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r anali ensee ki ng withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e CAT, li ke th e b ur de n fo r anali ensee ki ng withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, is hi gh er tha n t he burd enforsh owi ng en ti tl em en t t o a sylum . Al Na jj ar , 725 7 F .3dat 1 30 3.

W e h av e h el d t ha t ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns m us t b e m ad e ex pl ic it ly. See Y

an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atth e IJm

us t m ak e “ cl eande te rm in at io ns of c red ib il it y .”). Inasylum ap pl ic at io ns fil edon or a fte r May 11 , 20 05 , an a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n m ay be ba se d o n a ny inc on si st en cy , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e in co ns is te nc y go es to th e h eartof t he cla im . Ta ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); I NA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i); 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). “ Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , andall rel ev an t fa ct or s, a t rie r of factm ay ba se a cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n o n . . . th e co ns is te nc y be twee n t he ap pl ic an t’s . . . writ te n a ndora l s ta te m en ts (whe ne ve r m ad e an d wh ethe r or no t u nd er o ath, an d c on si de rin g the cir cu m st an ces un de r whi chth e st at em en ts were m ad e).” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i). Ho wev er, “ [t]he weak er the ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y , . . . th e g reat er the ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Y an g , 41 8 F .3dat 1 20 1. “ 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 , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as edonsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . If an ali en ’s tes ti m on y

is cred ib le , itm ay

be su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

hi s b ur de n 8of

pro of requi redto est ab li sh asylu m eli gi bi li ty. Ku evi ak

oe , 56 7 F .3dat 1 30 4. Howev er, a d en ia l o f as y lu m rel ie f can be supp orte d s ol el y by an adve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n. Id. at 1 30 4- 05 . The reco rdbe li es Zeid an ’s cla im on ap pe al th athi s t es ti m on y at t he 20 09 he ari ng was c red ib le . In fa ct , th e IJpro vi de d d et ai le d fi nd in gs to supp ort h is co nc lu si on th atZeid anha d n ottes ti fie d c red ib ly regar di ng hi s cl ai m forasylu m ba se d o n c hang edco un try con di ti on s. Th e IJba se d h is cred ib il it y fin di ng on in co ns is te nc es inZeid an ’s owntes ti m on y , dra m at ic in co ns is te nc ie s b etween Zeid an ’s 19 92 an d 2 00 9 a sylum ap pl ic at io ns , andin co ns is te nc ie s b etween Zeid an ’s andhi s b ro th er’s t es ti m on y ab ou t the ir f

am il y st il l i n Leb an on . The reco rdhe re thu s d em on st rat es th atth ere was subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he IJ ’s andBIA’s res pe ct iv e adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns , andth es e de te rm in at io ns alo ne were s uf fic ie ntto de ny Zeida n’s as y lu m cla im . Ku evi ak

oe , 56 7 F .3dat 1 30 4- 05 (de ni al of a sylum rel ie f can be supp orte d s ol el y by an adve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n) . Als o, Zei da n o ffer s n o c it at io n t o t he reco rdor o th er p ro of to supp ort h is ba re as se rti on th atth e IJwas b ia se d o r im pr op erl y in flu en cedby his hu ng er s tri ke orth e fo rce- feedord er en te redby the U.S. Dist ric t Co urt. Our rev ie w of t he reco rdrev eal s n o e vi de nc e to supp ort Zei da n’s as se rti on inth is reg ard . 9III. Fu tu re Pe rs ecu ti on

As d is cu ss ed , th e IJan d B IA fo un d Zei da n n otcred ib le reg ard in g h is cla im th athe ha d areas on ab le fearof f utur e p ers ecu ti on by H ezb ol la h i f returne d t o Leb an on . Reg ard le ss , th e IJan d B IA al te rn at iv el y fou ndth atZeid anfai le d t o m eethi s b ur de n t o s ho w th atitwas m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe pe rs ecu te d. Th ere i s s ub st an ti al ev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort the IJ’s an d BIA’s co nc lu si on inth is reg ard . Fo r ex am pl e, th e IJreas on edth atZeid anpro ffer edon ly gen eral iz ed as su m pt io ns ab ou t Hez bo ll ah ’s vi ew of th e Ch ris ti an -b as edLeba ne se Fo rces (“ LF”) t o wh ic h Zei da n o nc e b el on ge d, tha t h e h adon ly a lim it edkn owl ed ge of th e cu rren t p ol it ic al stru ctur e an d e nv iro nm en t i n Leb an on , th athe pro vi de d n o pr oo f th atan y on e wou ldreco gn iz e h im aft er 1 7 years o ut si de th e co un try, andth at he ha d fa m il y

inLeba no n (a ll Ch ris ti an , andon e a fo rm er LF m em be r) wh o h av e li ve d t he re wi th ou t i nc id en t. Fu rth er, St at e d ep art m en t d at a an d arece ntstud y by Can ad ia n aut ho rit ie s s pe ci fic al ly cite d b y th e IJsh owe d n o wi de sp readpro bl em s fo r Ch ris ti an s i n Leb an on , andth e supp orti ng do cu m en ts als o s ho wedth atth ere was a pe ace a cco rdsi gn edbe twee n Hez bo ll ahan d t he Lebane se Ch ris ti an le ad ers hi p i n 2 00 8 (i n Do ha , Qatar ), th ere i s a p owe r-s ha rin g a gr eem en t b etween Hezb ol lah a ndth e Ch ris ti anlea de rs hi p, an d t ha t Hez bo ll ahis a cl ear m in or it y in 10th e p arl ia m en t.

The IJ f urth er n ot edth atZeid an ’s exp ertdi d n otoff er an y sp eci fic s reg ard in g a ny pers ecu ti onda ng er t o Zei da n, b utrathe r on ly a gen eral be li ef tha t fo rm er LF m em

be rs (li ke Zeid an ) wou ldbe tar ge te d b y Hezb ol la h. Th e IJals o reas on edth atth e d oc um en ts pro vi de d b y Zeid anto co rro bo rat e h is cla im on ly co nf irmed hi s s ta tu s as a Ch ris ti anan d fo rm er LF m em be r, bu t d idno t p ro vi de an y supp ort fo r hi s cl ai m

th athe wou ldli ke ly be p ers ecu te d a s a r es ul t o f th es e fac ts . Tha t s ev eral Ch ris ti anm em be rs of Zei dan’s fa m il y , in cl ud in g abro th er wh o was als o am em

be r of th e LF, co nt in ue to li ve inLeba no n wi th ou t i nc id en t pr ov id es furth er ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he BIA’s an d IJ ’s rul in gs . Se e e.g . , Rui z , 44 0 F.3 d a t 1 25 9 (“ Ru iz ’s cla im was c on tra di ct edby his tes ti m on y th athi s s on an d h is pa ren ts ha ve rem ai ne d u nh arm edinth e reg io n o f Co lo m bi a whe re Ru iz all eg ed ly was th reat en ed .”). Acco rd in gl y , Zeid anha s n otsh ownth ata co nc lu si on co nt rary to th atreac he d b y

th e IJan d B IA is co m

pe ll edon th is reco rd . Se e Ade fe mi , 38 6 F.3 d a t 1 02 7. Fi na ll y , we are wi th ou t juris di ct io n t o re vi ew Zeid an ’s cla im forCAT rel ie f. His bri ef t o t he BIA co nt ai ne d o nl y a si ng le co nc lu so ry

refe ren ce t o t he Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re, an d h is bri ef t o t hi s C ou rt c on ta in s o nl y th ree g en eral as se rti on s o f en ti tl em en t t o C AT reli ef, b utno leg al arg um en t. Zei da n’s CAT 11cl ai m

was t he refo re n otful ly exh au st edat the BIA le ve l, an d was no t ad equa te ly pr es en te d h ere, an d i s d is m is se d. Amaya -Art un du ag a , 46 3 F .3dat 1 24 9- 51 . IV. Elig ib il it y

forAsylum A den ia l o f as y lu m

rel ie f can be supp orte d s ol el y by an adve rs e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n. Ku evi ak

oe , 56 7 F .3dat 1 30 4- 05 . Furt he r, anali enco nv ic te d o f an ag gr av at edfel on y

is in el ig ib le forasylu m . INA §§ 20 8( b) (2 )(A)(i i), (B )(i ). Sect io n 2 37 pro vi de s: Any alie n wh o— (I) i s co nv ic te d o f a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp itud e co m m it te d wi th in fiv e y ears (or10 y ears inth e cas e o f anali en pr ov id edlawf

ul pe rm an en t re si de ntst atus un de r se ct io n 1 25 5( j) of th is ti tl e) af

te r th e d at e o f adm is si on , and(II) i s co nv ic te d o f a cri m e fo r whi cha se nt en ce o f on e y ear o r lo ng er m ay be im po se d, i s de po rtabl e. INA § 2 37 (a)( 2) (A)(i )(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 7( a)(2 )(A)(i )(I). Anag gr av at edfel on y in cl ud es anoff

en se in vo lv in g “ frau d o r de cei t i n wh ic h t he lo ss to th e v ic ti m or vi ct im s ex ceed s $ 10 ,00 0,” as we ll as a n at te mpt or c on sp ira cy

to co m m itsu chan of fen se . INA § 1 01 (a)( 43 )(M )(i ), (U), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 43 )(M )(i ), (U) (em ph as is ad de d) . Effect iv e Apr il 1, 1 99 7, Co ng res s amend edth e d efi ni ti on of

“ ag gr av at edfel on y ” to in cl ud e “ a th eftoff en se (in cl ud in g re cei ptof s to le n pr op erty ) orbu rg la ry

off en se forwhi chth e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t [i s] at l eas t o ne y ear.” Se e Mo ha mmed v . Ash cr of t , 26 1 F .3d12 44 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); I NA

12§ 1 01 (a)( 43 )(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 3) (G). The e xp an de d d efi ni ti on ap pl ie s

retro act iv el y

to co nv ic ti on s tha t p red at e th e am en dm en t. Id. at 1 25 0. W e n eedno t re ach th e que st io n o f whe th er Zei da n’s p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on ren de redhi m

in el ig ib le forasylu m

rel ie f. The IJ (an d t he BIA) ex pr es sl y de em ed Zeid anno t cr ed ib le on th e is su e o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on—ju stas t he ori gi na l IJ (an d th e BIA) fo un d h im

no t cr ed ib le on th e is su e o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on . Thes e adve rs e cred ib il it y

fin di ng s al on e were s uf

fic ie ntto de ny Zeida n’s as y lu m cla im , ass um in g he was e ve n e li gi bl e. Se e Ku evi ak oe , 56 7 F .3dat 1 30 4- 05 . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we den y th e p et it io n i n p artan d d is m is s i n p art . PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART, DIS MIS SED I N PART.

13