Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d 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

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60048 Su m m ar y Cal endar
HO RT ENCE S YL VI E KAM BI W A,

P et i t i on er

v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L ,
R esp on d en t

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s B I AN o. A 097 636 162

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P et i t i on erH ort en ce Syl vi e K am biw a (“ K am biw a”) s e e ks r evi ew of an order of t he B oar d of

I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “ B I A” ) dat ed D ec em ber29, 2008, di sm i ssi n g h er app ealof t h e I m m i grati on Ju dg e’ s (“ IJ” ) den i alof her United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 5, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60048

The IJadmitted a me dical c ertificate that had been properly tran slate d an d to which 1 the DHSh a d no obj ection . 2 ap pl i c at i o ns f

o ra s yl um , w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l , and pr o t e c t i o n pu r s uantt o t he
r e g u l a t i o n s i mp l e me n t i n gt h e C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tT o r t u r e (“ C A T ” )

. B e c a u s e we f i nd t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n s upp o r t e db ys u b s t a n t i a le v i d e nc e , w e D EN Y t he pe t i t i o n. I . B A CK GRO UND K am bi w a i s a f

em al e na t ive of

C am eroon w h o w as adm i t t ed to t h e U n i t ed S ta te s o n A p r il 1 , 2 0 0 3 , a s a n o n im m ig r a n t v is ito rw ith a u th o r iz a tio n to re m a in unt i lSe pt e m be r3 0, 20 03
. She f i l e d a n a ppl i c at i o n f

o ra s yl um a nd wi t hho l di ng of r em ovalw i t h th e D ep ar t m entof H om el and Secur i t y (“ D H S” ) , c l ai m i ng t hat she i s a m em ber of t h e B am i l eke tr ibe i n C am eroon an d op posed her arrang ed
m arri age. K am bi w a’ s ap pl i cat i on w as d en i ed. O n O ct ober 15, 200 3, D H S i ssued a N ot i ce t o A pp ear, chargi n g h er w i t h rem o vab i l i t y pu rsuan tt o sec t i on 2 3 7 (a )(1 )(B ) o f th e Im m ig r a tio n a n dN a tio n a lityA c t, (“I N A”), 8 U .S .C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( B ) , as an al i en w ho r em ai ned i n t he U n i ted S tat es l ongert han pe r m i t t e d. O n N o ve m be r 4, 2 00 3, K am bi w a ap pe ar e d i n I m m i gr at i o n Cour ta nd ad m i t t ed the al l egati on s i n t h e N ot i ce. O n Jan u ary 27, 2 004 , K am bi w a aga i n a pp eared i n I m m i grati on C ou rtf or a m e r its h e a r in g r e g a r d in g h e r a p p lic a tio n s fo r a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l,
a n dp rotection p u rsu a n t to C A T
. K a m b i w a su b m i tted su p p ortingex h ib i ts w i th h er ap pl i cat i on s, incl u di n g h er bir t h a n d m arri age cert i f i cat es an d l et t ers f

rom h er m ot h er and hu sban d. A f t er D H S obj ect ed, t h e I J m a rk e d the cert i f i cat es o nl y f o ri de nt i f

i c at i o n pu r po s e s be c aus e t he y w e r e no tc o m pl e t e l y t r ans l at e d a nd
w e r e no ta ut he nt i c at e d. The I J al s o a dm i t t e d t he l e t t e r s i nt o e vi de nc e , b ut 1
n oted tha t t h e lett ers w ou l dbe given ve ryl i ttl e w eigh t. T o sup port h er app l i cat i on , K am bi w a presen t ed w i t n ess t est i m on y of H erbertN i t cheu ( “ N i t cheu ” )

. N i t cheu , a m em ber of th e B a m il eke tr ibe f rom C a m eroon, t est i f

i ed regarding the practi ce of arrang ed m arri ages i n t h e t ribe,N o. 09- 60048

3 an d tha t a w o m an w ho r e f us e d t o e nt e r i nt o an ar r ang e d m ar r i ag e w o ul d face pu n i shm en t
. N i t cheu adm i t t ed that he did not know K am bi w a an d m et h er f or t he f i r stt i m e o n t he day of hi s t es t i m ony. K am bi w a al so t est i f i ed regarding the al l egati on s i n her ap pl i cat i on s. K am bi w a c l ai m e dth a tamann a m e dJ e an N dj am bo u ( “ N dj am bo u” ) , w ho a l r e ad y h a dn in e w iv e s , c a m e t o h e rfa m ilyh o m e in M a r c h 2 0 0 1 t o r e q u e s t h e rh a n din
m ar r i age. I n June 2001, K am bi w a t r avel ed w i t h heruncl es t o t he l oc alvi l l age t o m ar r y N dj am bo u. W he n s he r e f us e d, ho w e ve r , he r unc l e s be c am e ups e ta nd pun i she d herby shavi ng h er h ea d a nd putt i ng pepperi n herey es and vagi na. K a m b iw a a ls o t e s tifie dt h a t s h e w a s k e p t in N dja m b o u ’ s h o m e a g a in s t h e rw ill. W h en she ref

u sed t o ha ve rel ati on s w i t h N dj am bou , he threatened t o ki l lher
an d a m an n am ed V al en t i n N gu et sa ( “ N gu et sa”) , K am bi w a’ s th e n - f i an cé. K am bi w a tes t i f

i ed that she m an aged t o esc ap e N dja m b o u ’ s h om e i n F ebru ary 200 2 w i t h t h e hel p of N dj am bou ’ s f

i rstw i fe. K am bi w a al so t est i f i ed that af

t er she m ar r i ed N guet sai n A pril2002, heruncl es c ons ul t ed w i t h a vi l l age

“ cha rl atan w i t ch m an ” t o ki l lher by l eaving “a t radi t i on alrem edy ” on h er door st ep. K am bi w a t e s t i f i e d t hats he t he n r an away w i t h N gue t s a t o hi s pa r e n t s’ house unt i ls he c am e t o t he U ni t ed St at es. N gu etsa r em ai ns i n C am er oo n, as do h er c h i l dren
. K am bi w a cl ai m s t h at i n A u gu st2 0 0 3 , N dj am bou m ad e a com pl ai n tagainstN gu et sa an d that N gu et sa w as arres t ed an d k ept att h e pol i ce st ati on f

or t w o day s. K am bi w a tes t i f i ed that she fears r et u rni n g t o C am eroon becau se s h e cl ai m s t h e governm en tcan “pu ty ou to d eath” i f y ou ref u se t o enter i n t o an arrang ed m arri age. In an oral deci si on , the Im m i grati on J u dg e den i ed K am bi w a’ s app l i cat i on for asy l u m , w i th h oldin g o f rem ov a l , an d w i th h oldin g pu rsu a n t t o C A T
. T h e IJ
c ons i der ed K am bi w a’ s “ dem eanorw hi l e t es t i f yi ng, ” “ t he r at i onal i t y, i nt er nal
c o ns i s t e nc y, a nd t he pe r s uas ive ne s s o f the t est i m o ny, ” a nd t he t o t al i t y o f t he evi den ce, an d f

ou n d that K am bi w a di d not provi de c redibl e t est i m on y i n sup portN o. 09- 60048

The IJ s t at e d th at Ka mb iwa “i s s i m p ly a m e mb er of a f a m ily who i s f

ollowin g the 3 tr a dition s of the B a mileketrib e inC a mero on .” The BIA noted that Kambiwa di d not spe ak E nglish , was unfamiliar withimmigration 4 proc ee din gs, an d wa s pro se wh en shefiledher asylumapplication and ather initi al heari ng. Th e B IA

qu es tionedth e worthof a detailed a dj u dication of wh eth erKa mb iw awa s a 5 me mb erof ap articular soci al group, giventh at the a dver se credib ilityf in din g“inan d of

its elf” defeated her clai ms. No netheless, the BIA reman ded procee dings to the IJ
. 4 of her ap pl i cat i on s. Th e I J al so hel d that even if K am bi w a’ s t est i m on y w as t rue, h er app l i cat i on f

or asyl u m w ou l d n otbe gran ted becau se s h e di d n ot dem on st rat e an y n exu s bet w een t h e t reat m en tshe al l eged an d an y protec t ed
c a te g o r ye n u m e r a te din th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(A), 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(A). T h ou gh K am bi w a al l eged i n h er ap pl i cat i on t h at she w as a m em b e r o f a pa rt i cul ar soc i algroup , t h e I J f ou n d that she fai l ed t o present evi den ce of her
m em bershi p. A dd i t i on al l y, t h e I J f ou n d th a t K am bi w a fai l ed to est abli sh 3
e l i gibi l i t y f

o rr e l i e f und e rt he CA T be c aus e s he di d no tde m o n st rat e t hats he
wo u l db e t o r t u r e di f

r e t u r n e dt o Ca me r o o n . F i n a l l y , t h e I J f o u n dt h a tKa mb i wa h ad kn ow i n gl y m ad e a f rivol ou s c l ai m f

or asyl u m an d w as t h eref ore barred f

rom r e l i e f

. Kam bi w a ap pe al e d. O n M ay 27 , 200 5, t h e B IAdi sm i ssed i n part an d su st ai n ed i n part K am bi w a’ s a ppe al
. The BI A sp e c i f i c all y ad o pt e d t he dec i s i o n of t he I J de nyi ng asyl u m based on K am bi w a’ s l ack of cr edibili ty , a n d di sm i ssed t h i s el em en tof K a m b iw a ’s a p p e a l. T h e B I A , h o w e v e r , s u s t a in e dK a m b iw a ’s a p p e a l o f t h e I J ’s de c i s i o n t hats he ha d f i l e d af r ivo l o us a s yl um a ppl i c at i o n. Kam bi w a f i l e d a 4 p eti ti on f

or re view w i th this C ou rt. In respo n se , D H S f i l ed an un opp osed m ot i on t o rem an d f or f u rt h er consi dera tion of

K am bi w a’ s c l ai m t h at s h e feared p ersec u t i on becau se of her
m em bershi p i n a parti cul ar soc i algroup . W e gran t ed th e m ot i on on F ebru ary 7, 200 6. O n N ovem ber 2 0 , 2 006 , t h e B IArem an ded t o t h e I J f or f u rt h er proceedi n gs an d en t ry of a new deci si on . In i t s rem an d bri ef, t h e D H S conceded 5N o. 09- 60048

Wenote that while Kambi w a in itiallyproceede d pro se , shewas represented by 6 coun sel wh enher2 0 0 4app eal b rief wa s f iledwithth e B IA

. 5 t hatK am bi w a w as a m em berof a c ogni zabl e so c i al gr oup: B am i l eke fem al e t r ibe
m em bers w h o are opposed t o arrang ed or f orced m arri ages. O n rem an d, K am bi w a ap pea red at a h eari n g on M ay 17 , 200 7, bef ore a di f fe r e ntI J. N o addi t i o nalev i de nc e w as sub m i t t e d dur i ng t he he ar i ng. I ns t e ad , t he I J r e c o gni z e d t he pr i o rIJ’ s d e c i s i o n a nd r e ac he d t he s am e c o nc l us i o ns regardi n g t h e den i alof K am bi w a’ s app l i cat i on s f or r el i ef an d p rot ect i on f

rom rem oval, w i t h t w o excepti on s: ( 1) i t n ot ed t h at t h e f rivol ou s f

i n di n gh a d been
o v e r t u r n e db yth e B I A ; a n d( 2 ) itn o t e dD H S ’s c o n c e s s io n r e g a r d in gK a m b iw a ’s
m e m be r s hi p i n ac o g n i z a b l e s o c i a lg r o u p . Ka m b i wa a p p e a l e dt o t h e BIA,
a r g u in gth a t th e se co n dIJ ’ s o rd e r h o ld in gth a t K a m b iw a w a s a m e m b e r o f a pa rt i cul ar soc i algroup necessi t ated a re- exam i n ati on of t h e pri or denialof her
a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n b a s e do n a d v e r s e cr e d ib ility
. O n D ec em ber29, 2008, t he B I Adi sm i ss ed her appeal
. T he B I Ah el d t hat th e D H S ’ s con cess i on didn ot alter the f i rst IJ’ s ad ve rse cre d ib i l i ty dete rm i n ati on , w h i ch w as based on i n consi st en ci es i n K am bi w a’ s c l ai m not rel ated t o her assert i on s of t ribal m em bershi p or opposi t i on t o f orced m arri age. The BI A al s o no t e d t hatne i t he ri tno rt he Fi f t h Ci r c ui tha d d i s t urbe d t he p r e v io u s a d v e r s e cr e d ib ilityfin d in g . T h is p e tit io n fo rre v ie w fo llo w e d
. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A s a t h reshol d m att er, w e ex am i n e w h et h er w e ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t he B I A ’ s or der
. D H S ar gues thatK am bi w a fai l ed t o exhausth eradm i ni st r at ive r e m e di e s r e ga r di ng he rw i t hho l di ng o f re m o va land C AT pr o t e c t i o n cl ai m s . Our
r evi ew of

t he r ec or d s how s t hatK am bi w a m ent i oned he rw i t hhol di ng of r em oval
c la im in h e r2 0 0 4 n o tic e o f a p p e a l to th e B o a r d , b u t h a s n o t r a is e dth e is s u e in sub s e que nt br i e f

i ng. Si m i l ar l y, he r 20 07 br i e fs t o t he BI A a ddr ess h er 6
m em bershi p i n a s o ci algroup rel ated t o her asyl u m app l i cat i on , bu tnot herN o. 09- 60048

Kambiwa’s 2 007Notice of Ap p ea l t o theB IA refers to ageneral appeal of the IJ’s 7 credibilitydetermination
. 6 w i t hho l di ng f

o rr e m o va lc l ai m . W e do no tpr e s um e t o t r e atK am bi w a’ s a s yl um 7
a n dw ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a lc l a im s s e p a r a te ly
. S e eMi k h a e lv . I NS , 115 F. 3d 299 , 306 (5t h C i r. 1 997 ) (hol di n g t h at, thou gh the cl ai m s are revi ew ed toget h er,

“ a cl ai m f

or asyl u m i s a di st i n ctrem e d y th an a cl ai m f or w i t h h ol di n g of d e p o rta tion .”)

. M o re o v e r, n o n e of K a m b iw a ’ s n o tic e s o f a p p e a l or B IAb rie fs
m e n t i o n o r a r g u e h e r CAT c l a i m s . Be c a u s e Ka m b i wa fa i l e d t o e xha us tt he
w i t hhol di ng of

r em ovaland C A T cl ai m s w i t h t he B IA , w e do nothave j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t h e peti t i on w i t h res pect t o t h ose c l ai m s. S ee W a ng v. A sh cr oft , 2 6 0 F .3 d4 4 8 , 4 5 2 -5 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). F o rK a m b iw a ’ s a s y lu m cla im s , w e re v i e w t h e B IA ’ s d e c is io n a n do n ly
c o ns i de r t he I J’ s de c i s i o n t o t he e xt e ntt hati ti m pa c t e d t he BI A’ s de t e r m i nat i o n. W angv . Hol d er , 569 F
. 3d 531 , 536 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)

. Q u est i on s of l aw are
r e v ie w e dd e n o v o . Nak i m bugw e v. G on zales , 4 7 5 F .3d 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). W e r evi ew fac t ualf

i ndi ngs for su b st ant i alev i denc e, w hi c h re qui r es “ onl y t hat th e B IA ’ s c o n c lu s io n b e b a s e du p o n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te da n db e s u b s ta n tia lly
rea son a b l e.” K

an e v. Hol d er , 581 F
. 3d 231 , 236 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)

. O u r r evi ew of
c r e d ib ilityfin d in g s is d e fe r e n tia l. Efe v

. A sh cr oft , 293 F
. 3d 899 , 903 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)

. W e m ay n otrevers e t h e B IA ’ s fact u alf i n di n gs un l ess t h e evi den ce c o m p e ls aco n tr a r yco n c lu s io n . Th eo d o ros v. G on zalez , 49 0 F
. 3 d39 6 , 40 0 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 7) (c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. Si nc e t he B I A ad o pt e d t he I J’ s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng K a m b iw a ’ s cr e d ib ility , w e re v ie w th e IJ ’ s fin d in g s h e r e . In o r d e rto b e e lig ib le fo ra s y lu m , K a m b iw a h a dto p r o v e th a t sh e is u n a b le
orunw i l l i ng t o r et urn t o C am er oo n bec ause of per se c ut i on o ra w el l

- f ounded fear o f pe r s e c ut i o n o n a c coun tof r ac e , r e l i gi o n, na t i o nal i t y, m e m be r s hi p i n a p a r tic u la rs o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n . Maj dv. G on zales , 446 F. 3d 590, 595 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) ; 8 U
. S. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 42) (A)

. Eve n a s s um i ng e l i gibi l i t y, t heN o. 09- 60048

7 A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l re ta in s d is c r e tio n to g r a n t o r d e n y a s y lu m . Mi kh ael , 115 F. 3d at303. H ere, our revi ew of

t h e rec ord dem o n st rat es t h at t h e I J’ s f i n di n gs are sup ported by sub st an t i alevi den ce. Th e I J f ou n d that K am b iw a w as evasive, th a t sh e g a ve ve rysh ort an sw ers, an dtha t sh e seem ed to h a ve gre a t dif fi cu l ty i n an sw eri n g an y qu est i on di rect l y. For exam p le, w h en asked w h en she f i rst fo u n do u tN dja m b o u w a n te dto m a r r yh e r , K a m b iw a re s p o n d e dth a t t h is occurred w h en she reached t h e vi l l age. K am bi w a w as t h en asked w h o t ol d h er, an d sh e sai d that her un cl es “rem i n ded h er. ” K am bi w a w as t h en qu est i on ed h ow s he a l r e ad y kne w , t o w hi c h s he a ns w e r e d t hats he kne w w he n s he l e f tt he
v illa g e . T h e IJ fo u n dth a t t h is t e s tim o n ys e e m e d“ c ir c u la r” a n d“ m a d e n o s e n s e ,”
a n dd idn o t a n s w e rq u e s tio n s s p e c ific a llya d d r e s s e dto K a m b iw a . T h e I J a ls o c it e dn u m e r o u s in s t a n c e s o f i n c o n s is t e n c ie s in K a m b iw a ’s t es t i m ony. Forex am pl e, he not ed t hatK am bi w a t es t i f i ed t hat on M ar c h 5, 2001, N dj am bou cam e t o t h e hou se and asked her fam i l y t o al l ow hi m t o m arry her. K a m b i w a the n stated tha t on Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 1 , h er u n cl e took h er to th e vil l a ge to
m e e tN dj am bo u, a nd t hat w he n s he r e ac he d t he vil l ag e , s he f o und o uta bo utt he
m ar r i age. O n June 20, heruncl e r em i nded herthaton M ar c h 5 N dj am bou had
com e t o t h e hou se t o a sk t o m arry her. Th e I J n ot ed that N dj am bou coul d n ot exp l ai n w h y h er un cl e w ou l d h ave t o st ate t h at N dj am bou ha d com e t o t h e hou se on M ar c h 5, butt hatK am bi w a s pec i f i c al l y s t at ed t hatheruncl e m ent i oned t hat da t e. A s another exam pl e, K am bi w a tes t i f i ed that her un cl es t h rea te n ed h er father becau se he ref u sed t o send he r to m arry N dj am bou
. K am bi w a f u rt h er testi fi ed , h ow ev er, th a t h er fath er d i ed i n S ep tem b er 2 0 0 0 , ye t t h e m a rriag e to N dj am bou w as notar r anged unt i lM ar c h 2001. There f or e, i tw oul d notbe p o s s ib l e f

o rh e rfa t h e rt o b e t h r e a t e n e db yh e ru n c l e s . Mo r e o v e r , wh e n Ka mb i wa w as a s ke d whet he rs he w as w at c he d d ur i ng t he pe r i o d when s he c l ai m e d s he
w as ke pti n N dj am bo u’ s ho us e , s he s t at e d t hatshe di d notgo t he r e . I n a ddit i o n,N o. 09- 60048

8 w h en asked how her father di ed, K am bi w a st ated he w as f ou n d d ead i n hi s r oom andha d d i e d o f

w o r r y be c aus e he di d notw an thert o m ar r y an o l d m an. The le t t e rK a m b iw a p r e s e n t e dfr o m h e rm o t h e r , h o w e v e r , s t a t e d t h a tK a m b iw a ’s fath er w a s k i l l edb y h er u n cl es. A t th e cl ose o f th e ev i d en ce, th e IJ stated , “I n c o ns i de r at i o n o f

t he t o t al i t y o f

t he e vi de nc e a nd [ K am bi w a’ s ] t e s t i m o ny t he C o u r t is co n v in c e dth a t [K a m b iw a ] h a s n o t p r o v id e dcr e d ib le t e s t i m o n yin sup port of

her ap pl i cat i on . ” W e can n otsaytha tthe recor d com pel s a c on t rary c o n c lu s io n . K am bi w a as se r t s t h a ts om e o f t he i nco nsi st enc i es m ay be ex pl ai ned by pr o bl e m s w i t h t he t r ans l at o ri n t he r e m o va lhe ar i ng. The r e i s no e vi de nc e i n t he
r e c o r d t hatt e s t i m o ny w as m i s i nt e r pr e t e d, a nd t he r e f o r e no b as i s t o o ve r t ur n t he IJ ’ s co n c lu s io n s . S ee W a ngv. Hol d er , 569 F
. 3d at 539 ( “ G iven t h at t h e enti re p r o c e e d in gw a s ta p e re c o r d e d , w e s e e n o th in gto in d ic a te th a t [p e tit io n e r ] c o u ld
n otha ve of

fered evi den ce of

an i m p ro p e r t ran sl ati on i n a m ot i on f or re co n sid e ra tion b a se du p o n th a t ta p e if th e tra n sla tion w a s fa u lty .”) K am bi w a al so argues t h at t h e sec on d IJ’ s f i n di n gs requ i re revi ew becau se th e D H S con ced ed h er cre d ib i l i ty on rem a n d
. T h i s ar gu m en t i s w i th ou t m erit. D H S s pe c i f

i c al l y c o nc e de d t hatK am bi w a i s a m e m be rof apr o t e c t e d g r o up, b ut di d no tc o nc e de K am bi w a’ s c r e dibi l i t y. M o r e o ve r , a s the BI A not e d, t he credibi l i t y determ i n ati on a dd ress ed i n consi st en ci es i n fact s t h at are u n rel ated t o K am bi w a’ s m em bershi p i n t h e B am i l eke t ribe or t o h er opp osi t i on t o arrang ed
m a rriag es. N oth i n g in the reco r d s u p p orts rev ersa lof th e fi rst IJ’ s cred ib i l i ty d e te r m in a tio n s . I I I . C ONC L US I ON Bec aus e o f

t he s t r o ng de fe r e nc e g ive n t o t he I J’ s c r e dibi l i t y f i ndi ngs a nd t he abs enc e o f

ev i denc e r equi r i ng a cont r ar y c onc l usi on, w e c onc l ude t hat Ka mb i wah a s fa i l e dt o s h o w t h a ts h e i s e n t i t l e dt o a s y l u m. A c c o r d i n g l y , we DE NYt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.