FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12334 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 926- 362 I N G R I D A M O C K E V I C I E N E , V E S T A M O C K E V I C I U T E , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The IJfound, and theBIA af firmed, that Moc keviciene ’s asylum application was time- 1 barred. This findingis not challeng ed on appe al, and is, there fore , abandone d. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). In addition, Mockeviciene make s no argument a s tore lie f u

nder t heUnite d N atio ns Conventi on Ag ains t T or

turea nd Other C rue l, Inhuman, or De gradingTrea tment or Punishment (“CAT”), a nd so it too i s abandone d. 2 I ngr i da M oc ke vi c i e ne a nd he rda ught e r , V e s t a M oc ke vi c i ut e , s e e k r e vi e w of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) . B ec ause the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on that M ockevi ci ene w as no tpers ec ut ed i n L i thu ani a nor i s m ore l i kel y than n ott o suffe r p e r s e c u tio n if

r e m o v e d d o e s n o t c o m p e l r e v e r s a l, w e d e n y th e p e titio n .

I . Ba c k g r o und a. Appl i c at i on and T e s t i m ony M ockevi ci ene a nd her daugh t er , V es t a, bo th L i thu ani an ci t i ze ns, w er e a dm i tt e d t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s on A pr i l 20, 2000, a s non- i m m i gr a ntvi s i t or s a nd ove r s t a y e d the i rvi s a s . O n J a nua ry 20, 2004, M oc ke vi c i e ne f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on se eki ng as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , base d o n m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c i a l g r o u p , a n d f

o rr e l i e f u n d e rth e CAT. 1 In h er ap p l i cat i o n an d ath er h eari n g , M o ck ev i ci en e cl ai m ed th atsh e w as a le s b ia n a n d h a d s u f

f e r e d p e r s e c u tio n b e c a u s e o f h e rs e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n . S p e c if ic a lly , M o c k e v ic ie n e te s tif ie d th a t f r o m 1 9 9 4 u n til s h e le f

t th e c o u n try in3

20 00 , the L i thu ani an po l i ce se ar ched her apartm entw i tho uta w arra nt , had h er t e r m i na t e d f

r om he re m pl oy m e nt , i m pr ope r l y e vi c t e d he rf r om he rapa r tm e nt , a nd tw ic e d e ta in e d h e ra n d b e a t h e ra ll o n a c c o u n t o f h e rs e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n . M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s tr oubl e s w i th the pol i c e be ga n i n 1994 w he n s he t ol d he rhus ba nd th a t s h e w a s a le s b ia n . A c c o r d in g to h e r , h e rh u s b a n d b e a t a n d r ap e d h e rw h ile h is f r i e nds he l d he rdow n. M oc ke vi c i e ne r e por t e d the i nc i de ntt o the pol i c e . B ut in s te a d o f

a s s is tin g h e r , s h e c la im s th a t th e p o lic e s e a r c h e d h e rm o th e r ’s ap a r tm e n t, w here M ockevi ci ene w as st ay i ng , pres um abl y l oo ki ng for “ ho m osexual l i t er ature. ” T h e p o l i ce d i d n o td et ai n M o ck ev i ci en e b u tt o l d h er th atth ey w o u l d “ k eep an eye on [ he r ] . ” T he ne xty e a r , M oc ke vi c i e ne f ound a j ob a ta c l e a ni ng c om pa ny . S he cl ai m s thatthe po l i ce i nform ed her emp l oyerthatshe w as a l es bi an and caused her to b e te r m in a te d . In earl y 1 9 9 7 , M o ck ev i ci en e t est i fi ed th ata l o cal p o l i ce o ffi cer, Ian k au sk as, qu es t i on ed her ather apartm entabou ther s exual ori ent at i on . O ff i ce r I ankauskas e xpr e s s e d di s gus ta tM oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s l e s bi a ni s m , phy s i c a l l y m ol e s t e d he r , a nd th r e a t e n e d t o ma k e h e rl i f e a “ n i g h tma r e . ” M o c k e v i c i e n e ’ s n e i g h b o r s b e c a me op enl y host i l e, and she attri bu t ed thi s host i l i ty t o h erhu sband and the po l i ce in f o r m in g th e m a ll th a t s h e w a s a le s b ia n . I n S e pt e m be rof

1997, M oc ke vi c i e ne a nd he rda ught e rw e nton aw e e ke nd tr i p a nd w he n the y r e turne d the y f ound a nothe rf

a m i l y l i vi ng i n the i rapa r tm e nt4

w i th appr opr i a t e doc um e nt s . T he ne i ghbor s c a l l e d the pol i c e w ho a rr i ve d a nd arre st ed M ockevi ci ene a nd det ai ned h erdaug ht eras w el l . A tthe st at i on , an offi ce r e x p la in e d th a t th e y h a d g iv e n a w a y h e rap a r tm e n t b e c a u s e th e y d id n ’t w a n t a l es bi an l i vi ng “ i n o ur di stri ct , ou r c i ty or our coun try . ” M ockevi ci ene c l ai m s that the of f i c e rthe n ki c ke d he r . S he w a s de t a i ne d f ortw o da y s a nd the n m ove d t o a ne a rby t ow n. S he c ont i nue d t o w ork a tthe s a m e pl a c e s he ha d be f or e the e vi c t i on, b u t lo s t th a t jo b in M a y o f 1 9 9 8 a f te rh e re m p lo y e rd is c o v e r e d s h e w a s a le s b ia n . In D ec em ber of 199 9, M ockevi ci ene r ec ei ved a no t i ce t o app ea r a tthe po l i ce st at i on i n the vi l l age s he w as l i vi ng i n. T he new i nspect or, P el vi kes, i nform ed her thathe w as aw ar e of her“ re cord” and thathe di d n oti nt end t o h ave a“ debauchee” i n hi s c om m uni ty . T he ne xtm onth, M oc ke vi c i e ne r e c e i ve d a l e tt e ra s ki ng i f s he w a nt e d t o j oi n a ga y - l e s bi a n c om m uni ty a nd, i f s o, r e que s t i ng tha ts he s e nd a pi cture t o the re turn add re ss . M ockevi ci ene di d so and soon hear d from a w om an na m e d “ D ona t a , ” a nd the y a rr a nge d t o m e e ti n M a r c h. A tthe appoi nt e d m e e t i ng t i m e , M oc ke vi c i e ne w a s a rr e s t e d by I ns pe c t orP e l vi ke s a nd “ abus e d ve rba l l y a nd phy s i c a l l y ” a nd thr e a t e ne d w i th thr e e y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . S he di d notpr ovi de a n y d e ta ils r e g a r d in g th is ab u s e . M o c k e v ic ie n e a n d h e rd a u g h te rle f t L ith u a n iato the U ni t e d S t a t e s , vi a the N e the r l a nds , a m onth a f t e rthi s l a s te nc ount e rw i th the p o lic e .An alien may seek a sylum if she “demonstrates by clea r and c onvincingevidenc e that 2 the application has been f iled within 1 year

after the date of the alien’s ar rival in the United States.” I

NA § 208(a)(2) (B ); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)( 2)(B ). An untimely application may

be co n s i d er ed , h o we v er , i f th e a l i ens h o ws ex tra o rd i n ary ci rc um s t an ce s fo r th e d el ay i nfi l i n g a timely application. I

NA § 208(a)(2) (D); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2)(D). No evidenceof extraordinar y circumstances wa s presented. 5 M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s da ught e r , V e s t a , a l s o t e s t i f i e d a tthe he a r i ng. S he c orr obor a t e d M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the tw o- da y de t e nt i on a f t e rthe evi ct i on as w el l as the ho st i l e tre atm entfr om the nei gh bo rs . V es t a a l so t es t i fi ed th a t s h e k n e w h e rm o th e rw a s a le s b ia n . M oc ke vi c i e ne s ubm i tt e d num e r ous doc um e nt s i n s uppor tof he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on, i nc l udi ng both of f i c i a l r e por t s r e ga r di ng the s t a tus of ga y s a nd l e s bi a ns in L ith u a n iaa n d p e r s o n a l le tte r s f r o m in d iv id u a ls w h o k n e w M o c k e v ic ie n e in L i thua ni a . F r i e nds of

M oc ke vi c i e ne w r ot e tha tthe y kne w s he w a s a l e s bi a n a nd th a t s h e h a d b e e n h a r m e d b y th e p o lic e b e c a u s e o f h e ro r ie n ta tio n . T h e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t’s 2 0 0 3 C o u n tryR e p o r t d id n o t m e n tio n s e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n , b u t r e p o r ts f r om the C ounc i l of

E ur ope a nd the U ni t e d K i ngdom de s c r i be d the di s c r i m i na t i on a n d v io le n c e th a t g a y s a n d le s b ia n s f a c e in L ith u a n ia . b. I J D e c is i on T he I J de ni e d M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rC A T . T h e I J f

o u n d th a t M o c k e v ic ie n e w a s n o t e lig ib le f ora s y l um be c a us e he rappl i c a t i on w a s unt i m e l y . T he I J de ni e d w i thhol di ng of 26

r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rC A T be c a us e s he ha d notm e the rbur de n t o s how pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed st atus or a l i kel i ho od of future p e r s e c u tio n if

r e m o v e d . T he IJexpres sl y f

ou nd thatM ockevi ci ene w as no tcr edi bl e bec ause , pr i m a r i l y , he di d notbe l i e ve s he w a s a c tua l l y a l e s bi a n. T he I J pr ovi de d the fol l ow i ng re as on s f

or hi s dou bt s r egar di ng M ockevi ci ene’ s profe ss ed se xu al o r ie n ta tio n : ( 1 ) M o c k e v ic ie n e “d e f in e d ” b e in g a le s b ia n a s “a w o m a n w h o w a n ts t o b e a roun d o ther w om en and . . . i tdo es no tnece ss ar i l y i nv ol ve[] se xu al r e l a t i ons hi ps ” ; ( 2) a l though s he ha d be e n i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orf oury e a r s , s he ha d notha d a l e s bi a n pa r tne r , s o tha ts he w a s “ [ a ] tbe s t. . . a non- pr a c t i c i ng l e s bi a n” ; ( 3) s he ha d “ no doc um e nt s t o e s t abl i s h tha ts he i s a l e s bi a n, ” a nd the l e tt e r s ornot e s s he di d s ubm i tw e r e notor i gi na l s a nd di d not“ m e nt i on w i th a ny de gr e e of s pe c i f i c i ty the l e s bi a n r e l a t i ons hi ps of [ M oc ke vi c i e ne ] , onl y a ddr e s s i ng the concl usi on that[M ockevi ci ene] i s i nd ee d a l es bi an”; (4) s he had “ no tj oi ned a ny gr oups w hi l e be i ng he r e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s f orf oury e a r s tha ti nvol ve [ d] l es bi an ac t i vi t i es ”; (5) s he di d n otprod uce a ny w i tness es t o “ att es tt o the fa ctthat s h e is in d e e d a le s b ia n ” ; ( 6 ) s h e p r o v id e d n o d o c u m e n ta tio n o f h e rp r o b le m s w ith th e p o lic e ; a n d ( 7 ) a lth o u g h h e rm o th e rw a s c u rr e n tly v is itin g h e r , h e rm o th e rd id nott e s t i f y a tthe he a r i ng. T he I J a l s o ba s e d hi s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on o n M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s d e m e a n o rd u r in g te s tim o n y .The IJnoted that if Mockeviciene doe s not qualify under theasylum standard, she 3 cannot qualify

under themore diff

icult standard f

or withholding of

removal. 7 A ft erfi nd i ng M ockevi ci ene notcr edi bl e, the IJdet erm i ned that , even a s s um i ng tha tM oc ke vi c i e ne w a s a m e m be rof a pr ot e c t e d s oc i a l gr oup ba s e d on h e rs e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n , s h e d id n o t q u a lif y f o ra s y lu m b e c a u s e s h e f a ile d to es t abl i sh thatshe w as pers ec ut ed because of her m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al gr oup. T he I J f

ound tha tthe i nc i de nt s tha tM oc ke vi c i e ne t e s t i f i e d aboutdi d not 3 c ons t i tut e a thr e a tt o he rl i f e orf r e e dom , a nd the i nc i de nt s pe rpe tr a t e d by one po l i ce offi ce r w er e i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh that , even i f he di d p er se cut e her , that the pe r s e c ut i on w a s c a us e d by the gove rnm e nt . F ur the rm or e , the I J f ound tha tthe do cum ent s i ntrodu ce d i nt o evi dence i nd i ca t i ng that(1) hom osexual i ty had been de c r i m i na l i z e d i n L i thua ni a , a nd ( 2) the L i thua ni a n P r e s i de nta c c e pt e d the c r e de nt i a l s of

the ne w A us tr a l i a n A m ba s s a dorw ho i ntr oduc e d hi s boy f r i e nd t o the P re si dentatthe ce re m on y dem on stra t e that“ ho m osexual i ty i s a tl ea stsom ew hat t ol er at ed i n L i thu ani a. ” T he IJchar ac t er i ze d M ockevi ci ene’ s t es t i m on y a s am ou nt i ng t o, “ atbest. . . di sc ri m i nat i on . ” T he IJal so det erm i ned that M o c k e v ic ie n e d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th e p o te n tia l f o rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o rto r tu r e if s h e r e tu rn e d to L ith u a n ia . c . B I A D e c is i onThe B IA found no evidenceof bias, and this issue in not appealed. 4 8 M ockevi ci ene, ai ded b y c ou nsel , fi l ed a N ot i ce of A pp ea l t o the B IA c l a i m i ng tha tthe I J e rr e d i n de t e r m i ni ng tha tM oc ke vi c i e ne w a s nota l e s bi a n a nd there fore i nel i gi bl e f

or as yl um base d o n h erm em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al gr oup. S he a l s o c ha l l e nge d the I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on a nd c l a i m e d tha tthe I J de m ons tr a t e d bi a s by hi s que s t i on of the da ught e r ’ s s e xua l or i e nt a t i on. 4 A lth o u g h M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s a tto rn e y in d ic a te d th a t h e in te n d e d to f ile a s e p a r a te b r ie f in s u p p o r t o f

th e ap p e a l, h e d id n o t d o s o . I n s te a d , h e f ile d a m o tio n to r e m a nd i n or de rt o s e e k a dj us tm e ntof s t a tus a s the s pous e of

a l a w f ul pe rm a ne nt r e s id e n t b a s e d o n M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s r e c e n t m a rr ia g e . T h e B IA d en ied M o ck ev icien e’s m o ti o n to re m an d an d af firm ed th e I J’s de c i s i on t o de ny M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s appl i c a t i on. T he B I A s t a t e d tha tM oc ke vi c i e ne had n otsubm i tt ed an appl i ca t i on for a dj ustm entof st atus or any e vi dence thather hu sband h ad fi l ed the approp ri at e vi sapet i t i on . F urtherm ore, the B IA no t ed thatan i m m i g ran tv i sa w o u l d n o tb e i m m ed i at el y av ai l ab l e t o M o ck ev i ci en e. B ecau se M o ck ev i ci en e d i d n o test ab l i sh h er p ri m a faci e el i g i b i l i ty fo r ad j u stm en to f st atu s, th e B I A d e n ie d h e rm o tio n to r e m a n d . A ft erbri ef

l y not i ng the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on s i n h i s dec i si on , the B IA foun d that M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s s u b s e q u e n t m a rr ia g e to a m a n u n d e r c u t th e c r e d ib ility o f h e rc la im to b e a le s b ia n a n d th u s th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s .9

T he B I A a c c e pt e d the I J ’ s “ ul t i m a t e c onc l us i on” tha tM oc ke vi c i e ne di d not e s t abl i s h he rbur de n of

pr oof f ora s y l um a nd the r e f

or e c oul d notqua l i f

y f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l o rp r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C A T . T h is p e titio n f

o llo w s . II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r ev iew th e B IA ’s leg al co n clu sio n s d e n o v o . D -M u h u m ed v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 814. 817 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs u n d e rth e d e f

e r e n tia l s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t a n d w ill a f f irm its d e c is io n “if

it is supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e . ” I d. a t817- 18 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3 d a t1 2 8 3 - 8 4 ) ( q u o t a t i o n s o m i tt e d ) . “ Un d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , we vi e w the r e c or d e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on a nd dr a w a l l r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof tha tde c i s i on. ” A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . “ T o r e v e r s e th e I J ’ s f a c tf i n d i n g s , we m us tf i nd tha tthe r e c or d notonl y s uppor t s r e ve r s a l , butc om pe l s i t . ” M e ndoz a v. U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .The g overnment argues that wedo not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s a

ppeal 5 beca use she did not exhaust her administrative remedies be forethe B IA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1); see also Sundar v. I NS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a claim not raised in the appe al to the B IA) (quotation and citation omitted). We reviewde novo whether wehave subje ct matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez-Orope za v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 321 F .3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). “A c ourt may review a f

inal order of removal only

if . . . the alien ha s exhausted all administrative reme dies available to the alien a s of right . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Mo c kevic iene ’sNo tic eof Appe al isbrie f but it sp e c if ic ally c halleng e s th eIJ’s cre dib ility deter mination and denial of a sylum. Although Mockeviciene doe s not specifically mention withholding of removal, it is proper f or us to treat an application for asylum to include an application for

withholding of removal. We there forehave jurisdiction. 10 I I I . D i s c u s s i on M ockevi ci ene pet i t i on s us t o rever se the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatshe w as no tpers ec ut ed on ac coun tof her s t atus as a l es bi an. T he IJdet erm i ned that 5 M oc ke vi c i e ne w a s i ne l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l be c a us e s he ha d not es t abl i shed thatshe w as a l es bi an or thatshe s uffe re d p er se cut i on ra ther than d is c r im in a tio n . W e e x a m in e e a c h e le m e n t o f th is d e te rm in a tio n in tu rn . T h e B IA d idn o t ex p re ss ly ad o p t th e I J’s f in d in g s r eg ar d in g M o ck ev icien e’s l a c k of c r e di bi l i ty butr a the rf

ound tha tthe e vi de nc e of he rr e c e ntm a rr i a ge t o a m a n s u p p o r te d th e f

in d in g th a t th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr one ous . M oc ke vi c i e ne , i n he rr e pl y , a r gue s tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n r e f e r e nc i ng m a te r ia l, i.e ., th e m o tio n to r e m a n d f o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s , th a t w a s n o t p r o p e r ly b e f o r e th e I J . T h e B I A ’s s c o p e o f r e v ie w is lim ite d :11

E xceptfor t aki ng adm i ni stra t i ve no t i ce of com m on l y kno w n fac t s s uch as c urr e nte ve nt s orthe c ont e nt s of of f i c i a l doc um e nt s , the B oa r d w i l l not e nga ge i n f

a c t f i ndi ng i n the c our s e of

de c i di ng appe a l s . A pa r ty a s s e r t i ng tha tthe B oa r d c a nnotpr ope r l y r e s ol ve a n appe a l w i thoutf ur the rf a c t f i ndi ng m ustfi l e am ot i on for r em and. If further f ac t fi nd i ng i s nee ded i n a part i cul ar ca se , the B oard m ayre m and the proceedi ng t o the i m m i grat i on j ud ge or, as approp ri at e, t o the S ervi ce . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( iv ) . T he que s t i on be f

or e us the n i s w he the rthe B I A m a y t a ke i nt o a c c ount M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s r e c e n t m a rr ia g e w h e n r e v ie w in g th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . I ti s undi s put e d tha the rm a rr i a ge w a s notbe f or e the I J . A l though the B I A i s not n o rm al l y t o en g ag e i n factfi n d i n g , th i s case fall s i n t o th e “ o ffi ci al d o cu m en t s” e x c e p tio n in th e r e g u la tio n s g o v e rn in g th e B I A . I d . M o c k e v ic ie n e h e r s e lf s ubm i tt e d the m ot i on t o r e m a nd f ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus ba s e d on he rr e c e nt m a rr i a ge . I tw oul d be abs ur d t o a l l ow the B I A t o c ons i de re vi de nc e of the m a rr i a ge i n de t e r m i ni ng the m ot i on a nd the n ba rthe B I A ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of the v e ry s a m e e v id e n c e w h e n e v a lu a tin g th e I J ’s c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . M o r e o v e r , w e a r e s k e p tic a l o f th e r e a s o n in g th e I J u s e d to d e te rm in e h is a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ng. S e e F or gue v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1287 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng that“ the [B IA ] m ustoffe r s peci fi c, cogentre as on s f or an a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ng. ” ) . T he f

a c ttha tM oc ke vi c i e ne ha d notbe e n i n a r e c e nt re l at i on shi p w i th a w om an i s notprob at i ve of her s exual ori ent at i on . T he very12

no t i on of a “ no n-pract i ci ng l es bi an” s ee m s t o m i sund er st and the nature of s exual o r ie n ta tio n , e ith e rh o m o s e x u a l o rh e te r o s e x u a l. C on tra ryt o the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng s, M ockevi ci ene di d n otdefi ne bei ng a l es bi an as

“ no tnece ss ar i l y i nv ol v[i ng ] se xu al re l at i on shi p, ” but , ra ther, w hen the IJas ked h er w ha ts he thoughtbe i ng a l e s bi a n m e a nt , s he r e s ponde d tha t“ [ i ] tdoe s n' tha ve t o be a s e x u a l a f

f a ir ,” a n d a d d e d th a t “[ s ]e x is n e c e s s a ry b e tw e e n tw o le s b ia n s . I w a n t to sa y thatI w antt o h ave the se x w i th the w om an. I c anno thave i tw i th a m an. ” A d d i t i o n al l y, th e IJ’ s st at em en tth atn o w i tn esses att est ed t o th e factth atsh e w as a le s b ia n is in c o rr e c t, b e c a u s e h e rd a u g h te rte s tif ie d th a t M o c k e v ic ie n e w a s a le s b ia n . T h is testim o n y a n d th e a ff id av it s p ro v id ed ex trin sic e v id en ce o f M o ck ev icien e’s c la im e d s e x u a l o r ie n ta tio n th a t th e I J w a s r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e r . H o w e v e r , it is n o t o u rr o le to e v a lu a te th e r e c o r d a n e w . W e a r e lim ite d to r e vi e w i ng the B I A a nd I J de c i s i ons a nd r e ve r s i ng onl y i f the e vi de nc e c om pe l s us t o do s o. M e ndoz a , 327 F . 3d a t1287. G i ve n M oc ke vi c i e ne ’ s r e c e ntm a rr i a ge , the e vi de nc e doe s notc om pe l r e ve r s a l of the B I A ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. E v e n a s s u m in g th a t th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls u s to r e v e r s e th e B I A ’s c r e d ib ility d et erm i n at i o n , M o ck ev i ci en e i s n o tel i g i b l e fo r w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al b ecau se she di d n otm ee ther burden o f provi ng pastpers ec ut i on or ri sk of future p e r s e c u t i o n . 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 ( b ) . U n d e ro u rc a s e l a w , p e r s e c u t i o n i s “ a n e x tr e me c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n a f e w i s ol a t e d i ns t a nc e s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e ntor13

i nt i m i dat i on [. ] ” S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 2005) . T he B I A ha s de f i ne d pe r s e c ut i on t o m e a n “ a thr e a tt o the l i f e orf r e e dom of, or the i nfl i ct i on of suff er i ng or harm up on , tho se w ho di ff eri n a w ayre garded a s of f e ns i ve . ” M a tt e rof

A c os t a , 19 I & N D e c . 211, 222 ( B I A 1985) . H ow e ve r , the B IA al so has s t at ed that“ pers ec ut i on [does] no tencom pass al l tre atm entthat s o c i e ty r e g a r d s a s u n f

a i r , u n j u s t , o re v e n u n l a wf

u l o ru n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . ” I n r e V- TS , 2 1 I & N D e c . 7 9 2 , 7 9 8 ( B I A 1 9 9 7 ) . M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s d e s c r ip tio n o f th e p o lic e ’s tr e a tm e n t o f h e rd o e s n o t r is e to the l evel of pers ec ut i on . A l tho ug h she cl ai m s t o h ave been det ai ned tw i ce , on ce f o rtw o d a y s , th e o th e rtim e u n s ta te d , b r ie f d e te n tio n a lo n e is n o t s u f f ic ie n t to const i tut e per se cut i on . S ee Z heng v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 45 1 F . 3d 12 87 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . T hi s c ou rtre ce nt l y has hel d thati nd i vi du al i nci dent s thatw ou l d n ot , al on e, c o n s titu te h a r m m a y r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n if

c o n s id e r e d c u m u la tiv e ly . R ui z v. G onz a l e s , 2007 U . S . A pp. L E X I S 3699, a t*11 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 20, 2007) ( hol di ng tha tthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof the be a t i ngs , thr e a t e ni ng phone c a l l s , a nd a k id n ap in g am o u n ts to p er se cu ti o n ). U n li k e R u iz, h o w ev er , M o ck ev icien e’s de t e nt i ons , a l l e ge d be a t i ng, a nd i l l e ga l e vi c t i on do notr i s e t o the l e ve l of p e r s e c u tio n b e c a u s e s h e p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t h e rlif e o rf r e e d o m w e r e e v e rin da nge ron a c c ountof

he rs oc i a l gr oup. B e s i de s the pa s tm i s tr e a tm e nt , the r e i s no14

r e a s o n to th in k th a t M o c k e v ic ie n e w ill f a c e p e r s e c u tio n if

s h e r e tu rn s to L ith u a n ia ei ther.

I V. C o nc l us i o n T he r e c or d be f

or e us doe s notc om pe l a f i ndi ng of pa s tpe r s e c ut i on gi ve n the d eferen t i al st an d ard o f rev i ew an d th e st an d ard o f p ro o f n ecessary to sh o w p ast pers ec ut i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e DE NY M o c k e v ic ie n e ’s p e titio n .