### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 11889 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 417- 097 A L I H A S S A N J A S E M , P e titio n e r , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 30, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 1 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. This leg islation created a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security, abolished the I NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department. 2 A l i H a s s a n J a s e m , thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons thi s C our tf orr 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 ’ s ” ) f i na l or de ra f

f i rm i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) de c i s i on, de ny i ng J a s e m ’ s c l a i m s f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd f orw i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n o n T o r tu r e a n d O th e rC ru e l, Inhu m an, or D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . In hi s app ea l bri ef , J a s e m m ove s thi s C our tt o r e m a nd hi s c a s e t o the B I A f orc ons i de r a t i on, ort o t a ke j ud i ci al no t i ce , of evi dence al l egedl y provi ng changes i n cou ntrycond i t i on s i n Ira q si nce the B IA i ss ued i t s r em ov al order. Ja se m al so ar gu es thatsubst ant i al evi dence di d nots uppor t( 1) the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on; ( 2) the I J ’ s a nd the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha thum a ni t a r i a n a s y l um w a s notw a rr a nt e d, pur s ua ntt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 13 (b)( 1)(i i i ); and (3) the IJ ’ s a nd the B IA ’ s c on cl usi on s thatJa se m w a s nots t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l unde rthe C A T . F orthe r e a s ons s e tf

or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny J a s e m ’ s m ot i on t o r e m a nd ort o t a ke j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f

n e w e v i d e n c e , a n d we d e n y h i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. O n S ept em ber 7, 20 01 , Ja se m , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I ra q, i l l egal l y e nt er ed the U ni t ed S t at es and w as det ai ned. T he Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce ( “ I N S ” ) s ubs e que nt l y s e rve d J a s e m w i th anot i c e t o appe a r( “ N T A ” ) , c ha r gi ng

1B e c a

us ethi s c a sewa s initi ate d whil etheI NS s til l w a s in

e xistenc e , this m e morand um re fersto the ag ency

as the I NS. As the IJnoted in his decision denying relief, although Jasem testified that he wa s born 2 in 1 96 2, hisbroth er Kazim w a s b or n in 19 55 , a nd hisbroth er F alah w a s b or n in 19 53 , Jas e m also testified that “[m] y

older brother’s name is Falah Hassa n J asem. And my

young est brother ’s nameis Kazim H a ssa

n Jas e m.”Addition ally, a s discus se d a bo ve , Jas e m in c lude d in

his application, in explaining why officials questioned him about Fala h’s disappea

ranc e, that Jasem 3 h i m w i th r e mo v ab i l i ty , p u r s u a n tt o I N A § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) , f

o re n te r in g th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t p r o p e rd o c u m e n ta tio n . I n N ove m be r2001, dur i ng apr e l i m i na ry he a r i ng be f or e a n I J , J a s e m a dm i tt e d the f a c ts c o n ta in e d in h is N T A a n d c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab ility . I n D e c e m be r2001, J a s e m f i l e d ac ouns e l e d appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd f

or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A a n d th e C A T . J a s e m a s s e r te d in h is appl i c a t i on tha t , i f

he r e turne d t o I r a q, he w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d by the gove rnm e nt o n acco u n to f h i s rel i g i o u s affi l i at i o n s an d p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n s i m p u t ed t o h i m as a S h iite M u s lim , a n d a s th e “f ir s t n e x t p e r s o n o ld e n o u g h f o rq u e s tio n in g ” ab o u t h is b r o th e r ’s d is ap p e a r a n c e . O n S e pt e m be r24, 2003, a tahe a r i ng on J a s e m ’ s appl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f f r om re m ov al , Ja se m , w ho w as the sol e w i tness , offe re d the fol l ow i ng t es t i m on y. Ja se m w as 41 ye ar s’ ol d, w as bo rn i n B aghd ad, Ir aq, and w as a S hi i t e M usl i n. Ja se m had a s i st erw ho l i ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es , and a w i fe , son, m other, four si st er s, and an ol der brother, K az i m , w ho l i ved i n B aghd ad. Ja se m ’ s ol destbrother, F al ah, had di s appe a r e d i n N ove m be r1981, dur i ng I r a q’ s w a rw i th I r a n. 2“wa s the first next person old enough for que stioning (my brother’ s son is not ol d enough).” When the IJquestioned Jasem about this apparent inconsistency, J asem stated that the g ov ernment o ff

ic ials h ad q

ue sti on e d him, ra

ther t ha n his o lder b ro ther Kazim, be c a us eKazim was pa rtially deaf and illiterate. 4 Ja se m further t es t i fi ed that , i n Jul y 199 1, offi ci al s w i th G ener al Int el l i gence, ag o v e rn m e n t a g e n c y , h a d c o m e to h is h o m e a n d q u e s tio n e d h im f o rap p r o x im a te ly an ho ur and a hal f abo uthi s brother F al ah, w ho m the offi ci al s bel i eved had de f e c t e d f r om the I r a q a rm y i n 1981, a nd ha d j oi ne d agr oup tha tw a s l oy a l t o the I r a n ia n s . A f

te rJ a s e m d e n ie d h a v in g h a d a n yc o n ta c t w ith F a la h s in c e h is di sapp ea ra nce, the offi ci al s l ef t , bu tst at ed thatthey w ou l d return. In S ept em ber 1991, the “ s a m e pe opl e ” r e turne d t o J a s e m ’ s hom e , m a de s i m i l a ri nqui r i e s about F al ah, and exp l ai ned thatthey had st op ped p ay i ng F al ah’ s s al ary t o F al ah’ s w i fe b e c a u s e th e o f

f ic ia ls b e lie v e d th a t F a la h w a s atr a ito rto I r a q . B e tw e e n S e pt e m be r1991 a nd D e c e m be r2000, w he n J a s e m l e f tI r a q, g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls v is ite d h im ap p r o x im a te ly 1 5 tim e s , e a c h tim e a tte m p tin g to ge thi m t o r e ve a l i nf

orm a t i on aboutF a l a h orF a l a h’ s w he r e about s . I n J ul y 1995, du ri ng on e of these vi si t s, go vernm entoffi ci al s c am e t o Jas em ’ s hom e a nd es cort ed hi m bl i ndf

ol de d i n ave hi c l e t o a n e i ght - by - f i ve - f oot“ r e d r oom , ” w hi c h ha d a c u p b o a r d a n d ab a th r o o m . T h e o f f ic ia ls le f t J a s e m in th e “r e d r o o m ” o v e rn ig h t, a f te rw h ic h tim e th e y to o kh im to a n o th e rr o o m a n d in te rr o g a te d h im . D u r in g th is i nt errogat i on , w hi ch l as t ed approx i m at el y a n h ou r, an offi ce r ( 1) agai n asked Ja se mIn addition to this information, J asem stated during cross-examination that, duringthe 3 19 96 detenti on , g ov ernment o ff ic ials hit him in th eeyeand in t hebac k, cut his l ip, pu sh e d him, and kicke d him. Jasem, h ow e ver, alsoc lari fi e d th at g ov ernment o ff ic ials did not b e at him duringany

other visit. 5 abou tF al ah, and (2) st at ed thatJa se m w as a S hi i t e w ho “ bel on g[ed] t o Ira n. ” M o r e o v e r , in F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 6 , g o v e rn m e n t o f f ic ia ls d r o v e J a s e m b lin d f o ld e d to a nothe rl oc a t i on t o be i nt e rr oga t e d. A f t e rJ a s e m a ga i n s t a t e d tha the ha d no i nf orm a t i on, he w a s de t a i ne d ove rni ghta nd the n t ol d tha the ne e de d t o br i ng i nform at i on i n the future. 3 I n a ddi t i on t o s t a t i ng ge ne r a l l y tha tthe s e of f i c i a l s vi s i t e d hi m tw i c e i n 1997 a nd thr e e t i m e s i n 1998, J a s e m t e s t i f i e d tha t , i n J a nua ry 2000, the of f i c i a l s t ook hi m t o an o ff

i ce , atw hi ch Ja se m w as i nt errogat ed by an offi ci al w ho m Ja se m b e lie v e d w a s h ig h r a n k in g in th e I r a q i g o v e rn m e n t. A f te rJ a s e m in f

o rm e d th is offi ci al thathe had n o i nform at i on , the offi ci al t ol d Jas em thatthe go vernm enthad a new m etho d thati ti nt ended t o u se on hi m t o g ethi m t o coo pera t e. T hi s off i ci al then i nstruct ed another pers on t o t ake J as em t o “ the pl ac e w i th the snakes . ” J as em w a s ta k e n to ag la s s - w a lle d r o o m th a t h a d as n a k e ly in g in o n e c o rn e r . D uri ng the tw o t o three ho urs thatJa se m w as l ef ti n the room w i th the snake, h e c a lle d th e g u a r d to ta k e h im to u s e th e r e s tr o o m . W h e n th e g u a r d e v e n tu a lly r e s p o n d e d , th e s n a k e w a s in f r o n t o f J a s e m a n d th e g u a r d to ld J a s e m h e h a d toAstheIJ note d in hisde c isi on

denyingre lie f f

ro m re mov al, Ja sem di d n ot m enti on thi s 4 incident either

duringhis init ial interview with an immigration officer , as par t of his cre dible fea

r interview, or

in his application for re lief. 6 w a i t . T he gua r d l a t e rt ook J a s e m t o the “ r e d r oom , ” w he r e J a s e m s pe ntthe ni ght be f or e be i ng t a ke n t o the of f i c i a l f ora nothe ri nt e rr oga t i on. 4 In N ov em ber 200 0, the l as tt i m e the go vernm entoffi ci al s vi si t ed Ja se m , they to o kh im to an e w o f

f ic e a n d , th is tim e , a d v is e d h im in ath r e a te n in g m a n n e rth a t, if he di d n otcoop er at e, the offi ci al s w er e goi ng t o turn h i s c as e over t o a “ spec i al court . ” T he offi ci al s then t oo k Jas em t o the “ re d roo m , ” w here he st ay ed for s even d a y s b e f o r e th e o f

f ic ia ls to o kh im b a c kto a n o f f ic e f o ra d d itio n a l in te rr o g a tio n . Wh e n J a s e m a rr i v e d a tth e o f f i c e , th e o f

f i c i a l i n j e c t e d J a s e m wi th a n u n k n o wn s ubs t a nc e t o “ r e l a x” hi m . W he n J a s e m s t a t e d tha the kne w nothi ng aboutF a l a h, the of f i c i a l y e l l e d a thi m , c a l l e d hi m na m e s , a nd a ga i n t ol d hi m tha t , i f he di d not gi ve them i nform at i on w i thi n the nextm on th, they w ou l d t ake hi m t o a “ spec i al court . ” J as em st at ed thathe bel i eved thatthi s “ spec i al court ” m ea nta c ou rtw here he w oul d ha ve no r i ght s , a nd the gove rnm e nte i the rw oul d or de rhi m ki l l e d or ja ile d . T h u s , in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 0 , a f te rJ a s e m w a s r e le a s e d , h e le f t I r a q . Ja se m further s t at ed that , af t erhe l ef tIr aq, hi s f

am i l y s enthi m l ett er s w arni ng hi m thatgo vernm entoffi ci al s had cont i nu ed l oo ki ng for hi m and h ad brou gh tt o Jas em ’ s hom e apo l i ce order, di re ct i ng hi m t o app ea r a tthe Int el l i gence A ge nc y C e nt e r . O ne of J a s e m ’ s s i s t e r s a l s o i nf orm e d hi m i n al e tt e rtha ttheIn support of Jasem’s application, he also filed copies of ( 1) the summons, directing 5 him to appear

at the Intelligence Center; and ( 2) transcribed letter s from his sisters. In addition to J asem’s te stimony , on the day of the he aring , he introduce d into evidence 6 (1) a letter from a spec ial ag ent with the U.S. Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security, confirmingthat J asem c ooperated in providingassistanceto the g overnment in an international alien smuggling case ; (2) a September 2003 news articlerelating that, ba sed on dec isions adopted by the United States High Commi ssioner for Refug ees ( “UNH CR”), followingthe explosi on of the United Nations’ off

ice in B aghdad, repatriation of Iraqi nationals livi ngin Iran w ould not be pursued; (3) a September 2003 a

rticle from the Miami Herald, involving interview s with leader s of guerillas ce lls in Iraq who were devote d to fighting the presenc e of theUnited States in Iraq; a nd (4) the U NHCR’s (i) June 2003 appeal for aid f rom the United States to meet humanitarian nee ds in Iraq, ( ii) July

2003 war ning f or countrie s not to return re fug ees to Iraq, a nd (iii) August 2003 rec ommendation that countries maintain a ban on forced returns of persons to Iraq, inc luding reje cted a sylum seeker s, beca use potential per secution might emanatefrom non-stateag ents. Moreover, In May

2003, prior to the hea

ring , J asem filed 24 a

rticles and reports, documenting abuses that oc curred duringthe re ign of Saddam Hussein’s reg ime. 7 offi ci al s had confi sc at ed a m edi ca l ce nt erthathe had o pera t ed for 12 year s a nd had b u rn e d h is v e h ic le . M o r e o v e r , w h e n J a s e m ’s f a m ily a tte m p te d to r e p o r t th is 5 bu rni ng , the po l i ce i nform ed them thaton l y the ow ner of the vehi cl e c ou l d m ake a r e p o r t. J a s e m a ls o te s tif ie d th a t, d e s p ite th e c h a n g e in r e g im e in I r a q b e tw e e n h is de pa r tur e a nd the e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, a nd de s pi t e the f a c ttha tthe gove rnm e nt of f i c i a l s w ho ha d pe r s e c ut e d hi m no l onge rw e r e pa r tof the gove rnm e nt , he be l i e ve d tha the w oul d be s ubj e c tt o r e pr i s a l s by the s e pe r s ons be c aus e he p r e v i o u s l y h a d r e f

u s e d t o c o o p e r a t e w i th th e m. 6 T he re cord al so cont ai ned the U . S . S t at e D epartm ent ’ s 200 2 C ou ntry R e p o r ts o n H u m a n R ig h ts P r a c tic e s f o rI r a q ( “2 0 0 2 C o u n try R e p o r ts ” ) . T h is d o c u m e n t in c lu d e d th a t, in 2 0 0 2 , a lth o u g h I r a q c la im e d to b e ad e m o c r a tic r e p u b lic , p o litic a l p o w e rr e s te d e x c lu s iv e lyin “ah a r s h ly r e p r e s s iv e o n e - p a r ty8

apparatus do m i nat ed by S addam H usse i n al -T i kri t i and m em bers of hi s e xt ended fa m i l y, ” a nd Ir aq’ s hum an ri gh t s r ec ord rem ai ned extre m el y poo r. U nd erS addam H u s s e in ’s r e g im e , th e g o v e rn m e n t s u m m a r ily e x e c u te d a lle g e d p o litic a l o p p o n e n ts a n d le a d e r s o f

th e S h iite r e lig io u s c o m m u n ity , a lo n g w ith p e r s o n s w h o m e r e ly w e r e a s s oc i a t e d w i th oppos i t i on gr oups . T he gove rnm e nta l s o w a s r e s pons i bl e f or di sapp ea ra nces and t orturi ng pers on s s uspect ed of, or re l at ed t o p er sons suspec t ed of, am on g o ther thi ng s, op po si t i on po l i t i cs , ec on om i c c ri m es , and m i l i t ary dese rt i on . A l tho ug h Ira q’ s C on st i tut i on and l egal code expl i ci t l y prohi bi t ed arb i trary arrests and d et en t i o n s, th e au th o ri t i es ro u t i n el y en g ag ed i n th ese a c tiv itie s , a lo n g w ith d e n y in g d e ta in e e s a c c e s s to la w y e r s a n d f a irp u b lic tr ia ls . T he gove rnm e nt , how e ve r , i ntr oduc e d thr e e a r t i c l e s f r om the M i a m i H e r a l d, d ated S ep tem b er2 2 an d 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , w h ich in clu d ed th e f o ll o w in g h ea d li n es : “ Ir aq ’s g o v e rn in g c o u n c il ta k e s U .N . s e a t,” “B u s h r e je c ts c a ll f

o rq u ic kI r a q h a n d o v e r ,” a nd “ I r a q w i l l be de m oc r a t i c , tw o l e a de r s s a y . ” T he s e a r t i c l e s di s c us s e d the c h a n g e d p o litic a l c lim a te in I r a q f o llo w in g th e f

a ll o f S a d d a m H u s s e in ’s r e g im e in M a r c h 2003. M or e ove r , the I J s t a t e d tha the “ w oul d be t a ki ng a dm i ni s tr a t i ve not i c e of c ha nge s tha tha [ d] oc c urr e d i n the c ountry of I r a q, be c aus e the y w e r e of such a not abl e degree . ” A tthe c onc l us i on of

thi s he a r i ng, the I J i s s ue d a n or a l de c i s i on, de ny i ng J a s e m ’ s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A a nd9

C A T , a nd or de r i ng hi m r e m ove d t o I r a q. A f t e rs um m a r i z i ng the e vi de nc e i n the reco rd , th e IJ d et erm i n ed th at , al th o u g h Jasem ’ s t est i m o n y, i f tru e, est ab l i sh ed p ast p e r s e c u tio n , h is te s tim o n y la c k e d c r e d ib ility . I n r e a c h in g th is a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, the I J c i t e d t o ( 1) i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n J a s e m ’ s t e s t i m ony a nd hi s app l i ca t i on on the ages of hi s brothers and the re as on w hy Ja se m w as cont ac t ed ab o u t F a la h ’s d is ap p e a r a n c e ; ( 2 ) J a s e m ’s f a ilu r e to s ta te e a r lie ra ll th e f a c ts to w hi c h he t e s t i f

i e d dur i ng hi s r e m ova l he a r i ng, i nc l udi ng tha the w a s pl a c e d i n a ce ll w ith a s n ak e; an d (3 ) in co n sisten cies in th e r ec o rd re lati n g to Ja se m ’s te s tim o n y th a t h e w a s d e ta in e d a n d b e a te n in 1 9 9 5 . A lt er n ativ ely, th e I J d eter m in ed th at, ev en if th e I J w er e to co n sid erJa se m ’s te s tim o n y a s c r e d ib le , a s y lu m w a s n o t w a rr a n te d b e c au s e af u n d a m e n ta l c h a n g e in the coun trycond i t i on s had occurre d, and Jas em had n o w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on upon hi s r e turn t o I r a q. T he I J s pe c i f i c a l l y not e d tha t , i n l i ghtof the end o f S addam H usse i n’ s r egi m e— the re gi m e und erw hi ch Ja se m had res i ded b ef o re h e e n tere d th e U n it ed S tates— a f u n d am en tal ch an g e in th e c o u n try’s cond i t i on s had occurre d. T he IJal so no t ed that , al tho ug h “ chaos” and “ arm ed stri fe ” r em ai ned i n Ira q, the evi dence i n the re cord show ed that , throu gh m i l i t ary forc e, m on i es , and o ther a ss i st ance , Ir aq w as becom i ng a dem ocra t i c c ou ntry , fr ee f r om the abus e s de s c r i be d i n the 2002 C ountryR e por t s . T he I J di s c us s e d tha t , due t o the s e c ha nge d c ountry c ondi t i ons , J a s e m a l s o w a s note l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of10

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I N A a n d th e C A T . I n a d d itio n , th e I J c la r if ie d th a t, a lth o u g h it unde r s t ood tha ti tc oul d gr a nthum a ni t a r i a n a s y l um ba s e d on pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a lo n e , th e r e c o r d d id n o t r e f le c t th a t J a s e m w o u ld f a c e p r o b le m s o n h is r e tu rn to I r a q , o th e rth a n th o s e a s s o c ia te d w ith e a rn in g aliv e lih o o d . Ja se m appeal ed the IJ ’ s dec i si on t o the B IA . In a s up po rt i ng bri ef , Ja se m ar gu ed thatthe IJ ’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi m as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unde rthe I N A a nd the C A T s houl d be r e ve r s e d be c aus e the I J e rr e d i n ( 1) m a ki ng a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ng ba s e d on a l l e ge d i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a nd om i s s i ons i n the r e c or d tha te i the rdi d note xi s torw e r e notc e ntr a l t o J a s e m ’ s c l a i m s ; ( 2) f i ndi ng changed ci rc um st ance s s uffi ci entt o rebuta pre sum pt i on of a w el l -f ou nd ed fe ar ; a nd ( 3) f a i l i ng t o c ons i de rtha t , e ve n i f c ha nge d c ountry c ondi t i ons e xi s t e d, agr a nt o f a s y lu m w a s w a rr a n te d f o rh u m a n ita r ia n r e a s o n s . In M ar ch 2 0 0 5 , th e B IA af firm ed an d ad o p ted w ith o u t o p in io n th e I J’s d eci si o n as t o th e IJ’ s ad v erse cred i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o n . T h e B IA , h o w ev er, al so a dde d tha t , e ve n i f

J a s e m ha d be e n c r e di bl e , the r e ha d be e n af unda m e nt a l c ha nge i n c i r c um s t a nc e s i n I r a q, s uc h tha tJ a s e m di d notha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof p e r s e c u tio n b a s e d o n h is o r ig in a l c la im s f o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. T he B IA expl ai ned thati tw as t aki ng adm i ni stra t i ve no t i ce of the fa ctthatS addam H u s s e in ’s r e g im e in I r a q h a d b e e n r e p la c e d , th e B a ’a th P a r ty n o lo n g e rw a s in p o w e r , a n d I r a q , w h ic h s u b s e q u e n tly w a s b e in g g o v e rn e d b y aG o v e rn in g C o u n c il,11

w as m ad e u p o f d i fferen trel i g i o n s an d p o l i t i cal p art i es, w i th d i fferen tag en d as, a n d , th e r e f

o r e , r e p r e s e n te d a ll s e c tio n s o f I r a q i s o c ie ty . T h e B I A a ls o s ta te d th a t, a lth o u g h it r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e s itu a tio n in I r a q w a s u n s tab le , a n d th a t B a ’a th P a r ty l oyal i st s w er e s t i l l ph ys i ca l l y pre se nti n Ira q, the basi s of J as em ’ s c l ai m s f or re l i ef w a s f r o m th e B a ’a th P a r ty its e lf , a n d h e c o u ld a v o id th e s e lo y a lis ts b y r e lo c a tin g to a n o th e rp a r to f

I r a q . J a s e m th e n f

i l e d th i s t i m e l y p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , a s p a r t o f h is b r ie f o n ap p e a l, J a s e m m o v e s u s to t a ke j udi c i a l not i c e of

pol i t i c a l de ve l opm e nt s i n I r a q tha tha ve oc c urr e d s i nc e the B IA i ssu ed i t s o rd er affirm i n g th e IJ’ s d eci si o n i n M arch 2 0 0 5 . Jasem al so a tt a c he s f

orourr e vi e w f

ourne w s pape ra r t i c l e s , w hi c h he c ont e nds s how ongoi ng

“ gross, fl agra ntand m as s vi ol at i on s of hum an ri gh t s i n Ira q. ” B e f or e the e na c tm e ntof

the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f orm a nd I m m i gr a nt R e s p o n s ib ility A c t o f

1 9 9 6 ( “I I R I R A ” ) , P u b .L . N o . 1 0 4 - 2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 3 0 0 9 - 5 4 6 , w e ut i l i z e d 28 U . S . C . § 2347( c ) t o i nvoke ourdi s c r e t i ona ry a uthor i ty t o r e m a nd i m m i gr a t i on c a s e s , s uc h tha tne w non- r e c or d e vi de nc e c oul d be a dm i tt e d on appeal , or ca se s c ou l d b e r em anded for the B IA or the IJt o con si der thi s e vi dence i n the fi rs ti nst ance . S ee A l N ajj arv. A shcr oft , 25 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 78 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T he II R IR A , ho w ever , expres sl y prohi bi t s acourtre vi ew i ng a B IA re m ov al o r d e rf r o m r e m a n d i n g ac a s e f o rth e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e . S e e I NA 24 2(a) (1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (1). M oreover, the II R IR A prov i des that“ the court12

of appe a l s s ha l l de c i de the pe t i t i on onl y on the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d on w hi c h the o rd er o f rem o v al i s b ased . ” IN A § 2 4 2 (b )(4 )(A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(A ). T h u s, w e ha ve c onc l ude d tha tw e “ c a nnotf i nd, orc ons i de r , f

a c t s notr a i s e d i n the adm i ni stra t i ve forum . ” F orgu e v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 20 05 ); se e a l so A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 78 (hol di ng i n a tra nsi t i on al rul es ca se that w e “ ca nn otengage i n fac t -f i nd i ng on appeal , no r m ayw e w ei gh evi dence thatw as notpr e vi ous l y c ons i de r e d be l ow ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , t o the e xt e ntJ a s e m i s m ovi ng us t o rem and h i s c as e t o the IJor the B IA , or t o con si der new evi dence of changed c o u n try c o n d itio n s , w e a r e f o r e c lo s e d f

r o m g r a n tin g th is r e lie f

. I s s u e 1: T h e I J’ s ad ve r s e c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n at i on J a s e m a r gue s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on m us tbe ove r turne d be c aus e none of the I J ’ s f

a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons i s s uppor t e d by subst ant i al evi dence, and, even i f s ub st ant i al evi dence exi st ed, the al l eged in c o n s is te n c ie s o n w h ic h th e I J r e lie d e ith e rw e r e e x p la in e d o rw e r e in s ig n if ic a n t in l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng w e i ghtof othe re vi de nc e J a s e m s ubm i tt e d. W he n the B I A i s s ue s ade c i s i on, w e r e vi e w onl y tha tde c i s i on, e xc e ptt o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. C ha c on- B ot e r o v. U . S . A tty G e n. , N o. 04- 16422, m a nus c r i ptop. a t5 ( 11th C i r . O c t . 6, 2005) . “ I ns of a ra s the B I A a dopt s the I J ’ s r e a s oni ng, w e w i l l r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on a s w e l l . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on an d m ar k s o m itted ). B ec au se th e B IA ex p re ss ly ad o p ted , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e I J’s13

r e a s o n in g a s to J a s e m ’s c r e d ib ility , w e r e v ie w o n ly th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on. S e e i d. H ow e ve r , be c aus e the B I A a r t i c ul a t e d i t s r e a s ons f or a dopt i ng the I J ’ s othe rde t e rm i na t i ons , w e r e vi e w the de c i s i ons of both the I J a nd the B I A i n de c i di ng J a s e m ’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s . S e e i d. ( r e vi e w i ng the d ec isio n s o f b o th th e I J a n d th e B IA w h en th e B IA ex p re ss ly ad o p ted th e I J’s r e a s o n in g a n d b r ie f

ly a r tic u la te d its r e a s o n s f o rd o s o ) . F urtherm ore, t o the ext entthatthe IJ ’ s a nd the B IA ’ s dec i si on s w er e bas ed o n le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s , o u rr e v ie w is d e n o v o . D - M u h u m e d v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 8 8 F .3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 7 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). O n th e o th erh an d , th e I J’s a n d th e B IA ’s f a c tu a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n s a r e r e v i e we d u n 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 , a n d we

“ m us ta f f i rm the [ ] de c i s i on i f

i ti s s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd prob at i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 12 83 -84 (qu ot at i on and m arks om i tt ed). “ U nd erthe subst ant i al evi dence t es t , w e r e 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 ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 2 4 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h u s , af in d in g o f f a c t w ill b e r e v e r s e d “o n ly w h e n th e r e c o r d c o m p e ls ar e v e r s a l; th e m e r e f

a c t th a t th e r e c o r d m a y s u p p o r t ac o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n is n o t e n o u g h to j us t i f y ar e ve r s a l of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f

i ndi ngs . ” I d.14

A cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on al so i s r evi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence te s t; th u s , w e “m a y n o t s u b s titu te its ju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e [ I J ] w ith r e s p e c t to cr ed ib il ity f

in d in g s.” D -M u h u m ed , 3 8 8 F .3 d at 8 1 8 . If c re d ib le, an alien ’s te s tim o n y m a y b e s u f

f ic ie n t to s u s ta in th e b u r d e n o f p r o o f w ith o u t c o rr o b o r a tio n . Y ang v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 41 8 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ T he w ea ker a n appl i ca nt ’ s t es t i m on y, ho w ever , the great erthe need for corr ob orat i ve evi dence. ” I d. I ndi c a t i ons of

r e l i abl e t e s t i m ony i nc l ude c ons i s t e nc y on di r e c te xa m i na t i on, consi st encyw i th the w ri tt en appl i ca t i on , and the abse nce of emb el l i shm ent s. S ee I n r e B - , 21 I & N D e c . 66, 70 ( B I A 1995) ; s e e a l s o D a i l i de v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 387 F .3 d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( a f f irm in g th e B I A ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility de t e rm i na t i on, w hi c h w a s ba s e d upon i t s f i ndi ng tha tthe a l i e n’ s t e s t i m ony c o n f lic te d w ith h is a n s w e r s to in te rr o g a to r ie s a n d o th e rd o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e ) . “C o n v e r s e ly , a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n a lo n e m a y b e s u f f ic ie n t to supp ortthe deni al of an as yl um appl i ca t i on . ” F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at12 87 . H ow ever ,

“ an adverse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on do es no tal l evi at e the IJ ’ s duty t o con si der other e vi dence produ ce d b y a n asy l um appl i ca nt . ” I d. If an appl i ca ntprod uces e vi de nc e be y ond hi s ow n t e s t i m ony , “ i ti s nots uf f i c i e ntf orthe I J t o r e l y s ol e l y on an adverse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on i n tho se i nst ance s. ” I d. F urtherm ore, “ the IJ m us tof f e rs pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons f

ora n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng. ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ O nc e a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng i s m a de , the bur de n i s onCongress re cently passed the REAL

ID Act of

2005, Pub.L . No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 7 (May 11, 2005), which, a

mong other cha

ng es, provides that reviewing c ourts now must give greater de ferenceto an IJ ’s credibility deter minations, and that inconsistences, inac curacies, or falsehoods identified by

an IJg iving rise to an adverse credibility deter mination may

be made without reg ard to whether they were central to the applica nt’s claim. See I

NA § 208(b) (1)(B) , 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8(b) (1 )(B ) ( 20 05 ). Th eREALID A c t, h ow e ver, state s th at th e seprov isi on s “ sh all apply to applications for a sylum, withholdi ng , or other relief f rom removal made on or after”the date the A ct was enacte d. See Pub.L .No. 109-13, 119 Stat. at 305. We havenot issued a published opinion on either the applica bility of these chang es to cre dibility deter minations, or when they

take e ffe ct. Nevertheless, be causethe application of the Act to this casewould not chang e the outcome , we ne ed not dec ide these issues here. 15 the appl i c a nta l i e n t o s how tha tthe I J ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de c i s i on w a s nots uppor t e d by

‘ s pe c i f i c , c oge ntr e a s ons [ , ] ’ orw a s notba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). 7 H e r e , th e I J o f

f e r e d “s p e c if

ic , c o g e n t r e a s o n s ” f

o rh is a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . T h e s e r e a s o n s a ls o w e r e s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d . T o th e ex t en tth e IJ ci t ed t o i n co n si st en ci es rel at i n g t o th e ag es o f Jasem ’ s b ro th ers, J a s e m t e s t i f

i e d d u r i n g h i s r e mo v a l h e a r i n g th a th e w a s th e y o u n g e s t . J a s e m, ho w ever , al so t es t i fi ed du ri ng thi s hea ri ng that“ [m ] y ol der brother’ s nam e i s F al ah H a s s a n J a s e m . A n d m y y o u n g e s t b r o th e r ’s n a m e is K a z im H a s s a n J a s e m .” A d d itio n a lly , J a s e m in c lu d e d in h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n , in e x p la in in g w h y o f f ic ia ls que s t i one d hi m aboutF a l a h’ s di s appe a r a nc e , tha tJ a s e m “ w a s the f i r s tne xtpe r s on ol d eno ug h for qu es t i on i ng (m y brother’ s s on i s notol d eno ug h). ” A l tho ug h Jas em s u b s e q u e n tly a tte m p te d to e x p la in th is in c o n s is te n c y a n d w h y th e o f f ic ia ls h a d n o t, in s te a d , q u e s tio n e d h is o ld e rb r o th e rK a z im , b y s ta tin g th a t K a z im w a s p a r tia lly16

de a f a nd i l l i t e r a t e , the I J pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d the c ons i s t e nc y of J a s e m ’ s t e s t i m ony w ith h is w r itte n ap p lic a tio n . S e e D a ilid e , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 3 . M o r e o v e r , th is i nc ons i s t e nc y r e l a t e d t o J a s e m ’ s r e a s on w hy he be l i e ve d he w a s pe r s e c ut e d i n the pastand w ou l d b e per se cut ed i n the future. S im ila r ly , to th e e x te n t th e I J r e lie d o n J a s e m ’s f a ilu r e to in c lu d e in h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rr e lie f h is te s tim o n y o n b e in g d e ta in e d in ar o o m w ith as n a k e in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 , ar e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d r e f

le c ts th a t J a s e m f

a ile d to m e n tio n th is i nc i de nte i the rdur i ng hi s i ni t i a l i nt e rvi e w w i th a n i m m i gr a t i on of f i c e r , a s pa r tof h i s cred i b l e-fear interview , o r i n h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r rel i ef. D esp i t e Jasem ’ s cro ssexam i nat i on t es t i m on y duri ng hi s r em ov al hear i ng thathe w as beat en w hi l e he w as de t a i ne d i n 1996, he ne i the rs t a t e d tha the w a s be a t e n dur i ng di r e c te xa m i na t i on, nori n hi s appl i c a t i on. M or e ove r , a l though J a s e m s ubm i tt e d avol um i nous a m ount of supp ort i ng do cum ent s on the coun trycond i t i on s i n Ira q d uri ng S addam H usse i n’ s r egi m e, al on g w i th evi dence re l at i ng t o h i s c l ai m thathe w ou l d fac e p r o s e c u tio n in a“s p e c ia l c o u r t” if h e w a s r e tu rn e d to I r a q , h e d id n o t s u b m it do cum ent ary e vi dence s up po rt i ng hi s i nd i vi du al cl ai m s of pas tpers ec ut i on . S ee Y a n g , 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 1 . T hus , J a s e m ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on

“ w as no tsupp ort ed by ‘ spec i fi c, cogentre as on s[ , ] ’ or w as no tbase d o n sub st ant i al e v id e n c e .” S e e F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . R e g a r d le s s , a s th e g o v e rn m e n t a s s e r ts17

a n d a s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , e v e n if th e I J e rr e d in r e a c h in g its a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d et erm i n at i o n , an d ev en i f Jasem est ab l i sh ed p astp ersecu t i o n , h e fai l ed t o est ab l i sh el i gi bi l i ty f

or as yl um or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al because of c hang ed coun try c ondi t i ons i n I r a q. I s s ue 2 : The I J ’ s a nd t he BI A ’ s de t e r m i na t i o ns t ha t hum a ni t a r i a n a s yl um

w a s n o t w a r r a n t e d , p u r s u a n t t o 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( iii) J a s e m a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e I J e rr e d in f a ilin g to c o n s id e rth a t, e v e n if aw e llf ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on di d note xi s t , agr a ntof hum a ni t a r i a n a s y l um w a s w a rr a n te d b a s e d o n th e s e v e r ity a n d le n g th o f J a s e m ’s p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . W i tho utci t i ng t o the re cord, Ja se m cont ends thatthi s e xerc i se of autho ri ty w as w arran t ed b ecau se h e su ffered t en years o f i n t erro g at i o n , arb i trary d et en t i o n s, be a t i ngs , i na de qua t e f

ood a nd w a t e r , a nd s e ve r e ps y c hol ogi c a l abus e a nd i nt i m i dat i on . Ja se m al so as se rt s that , because hi s pas tpers ec ut ors r em ai n i n Ira q a nd a r e be i ng i nc orpor a t e d i nt o the ne w gove rnm e nt , he a nd hi s f a m i l y s t i l l ha ve le g itim a te f

e a r s . A s di s c us s e d above , be c aus e the B I A c om m e nt e d on w hy i tw a s a dopt i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng r e l i e f f r om r e m ova l , w e r e vi e w both the I J ’ s a nd the B IA ’ s dec i si on s. S ee C hacon-B ot er o, N o. 04 -164 22 , m anuscr i ptop . at5. A n al i en wh o a rr i v e s i n , o ri s p r e s e n ti n , th e Un i t e d S t a t e s m a y ap p l y f o ra s y l u m . I NA § 208( a ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 1) . T he S e c r e t a ry of H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty a nd thePursuant to the REALID Act, I NA § 208(b) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1), wa s amende d 8 to add “TheSecretary

of Homela

nd Security

or the Attorney

General,”as if enacted on Ma rch 1, 2003. See I

NA § 208(b) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1) (2005) . 18 A tt o rn ey G en er al h av e d iscr etio n to g ra n t asy lu m if th e a li en m ee ts th e I N A ’s d e f in itio n o f a“r e f u g e e .” I N A § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) . A “r e f u g e e ” is 8 d efi n ed as fo l l o w s: any per son w ho i s out si de any c ou ntryof such pers on ’ s nat i on al i ty or, in th e c a s e o f

ap e r s o n h a v in g n o n a tio n a lity , is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try in w hi c h s uc h pe r s on l a s thabi tua l l y r e s i de d, a nd w ho i s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f or hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, thatcoun trybecause of per se cut i on or a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup , or po l i t i ca l o p in io n . . .. IN A § 1 01 (a )( 42 )( A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42)(A ). “ T he as yl um appl i ca ntca rr i es the bur de n of

pr ovi ng s t a tut ory ‘ r e f

uge e ’ s t a tus . ” D - M uhum e d, 388 F . 3d a t818. T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um e l i gi bi l i ty , the pe t i t i one rm us t , w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e d ib le e v id e n c e , d e m o n s tr a te ( 1 ) p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f as ta tu to r ily l i st ed fact o r, o r (2 ) a “ w el l -fo u n d ed fear” that th e st atu t o ri l y l i st ed fact o r w i l l cau se f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1287. I f the pe t i t i one rde m ons tr a t e s pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the r e i s ar e butt abl e pr e s um pt i on tha the ha s aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R § 208. 13( b) ( 1) . I f he ca nn otshow pastpers ec ut i on , then the pet i t i on erm ustdem on stra t e aw el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n th a t is b o th s u b je c tiv e ly g e n u in e a n d o b je c tiv e ly19

re as on abl e. A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 89 . T he subj ec t i ve com po nentca n b e proved “b y th e ap p lic a n t’s c r e d ib le te s tim o n y th a t h e o rs h e g e n u in e ly f e a r s p e r s e c u tio n ,” w h i l e th e o b

j ect i v e co m p o n en t“ can b e fu l fi l l ed ei th er b y est ab l i sh i n g p ast pe r s e c ut i on ortha the ors he ha s agood r e a s on t o f e a rf utur e pe r s e c ut i on. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). J a s e m is n o t c h a lle n g in g o n ap p e a l th e I J ’s a n d th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n s th a t, e ve n i f he e s t abl i s he d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on, the gove rnm e ntr e butt e d the pr e s um pt i on of a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on by es t abl i shi ng changed cou ntry c ondi t i ons . T hus , w e de e m a ny a r gum e nt s r e l a t i ng the s e de t e rm i na t i ons abando ned. S ee S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe pet i t i on erabando ned the i ss ue of the deni al of re l i ef un der the C A T by notr a i s i ng a ny c ha l l e nge s t o i ti n he rbr i e f ) . I ns t e a d, J a s e m i s a r gui ng th a t, d e s p ite th e s e c h a n g e d c o u n try c o n d itio n s , th e I J a n d B I A ab u s e d th e ir d i s c r e t i o n i n n o tg r a n t i n g h i m h u ma n i t a r i a n a s y l u m. I n M a tte ro f

C h e n , 2 0 I & N D e c . 1 6 ( B I A 1 9 8 9 ) , th e B I A d e te rm in e d th a t, even i f the pres um pt i on of future pers ec ut i on ar i si ng fr om pastpers ec ut i on has be e n r e butt e d, a n a l i e n m a y ha ve s uf f e r e d s uc h s e ve r e ora tr oc i ous f orm s of p e r s e c u tio n a t th e h a n d s o f th e f o rm e rr e g im e s u c h th a t it w o u ld b e in h u m a n e to re qu i re the al i en t o return t o h i s hom e c ou ntry . Id. at19 . T he B IA further e xpl a i ne d:20

[ T ]h e r e m a y b e c a s e s w h e r e th e f a v o r ab le e x e r c is e o f

d is c r e tio n is w a rr a nt e d f

orhum a ni t a r i a n r e a s ons e ve n i f the r e i s l i tt l e l i ke l i hood of f utur e pe r s e c ut i on . . . . I ti s f r e que nt l y r e c ogni z e d tha tape r s on w ho— orw hos e f

a m i l y— ha s s uf

f e r e d unde ra tr oc i ous f

orm s of pers ec ut i on shou l d n otbe expect ed t o repatri at e. E ven tho ug h there m ay h av e b een a ch an g e o f reg i m e i n th e co u n try, th i s m ay n o tal w ays p r o d u c e ac o m p le te c h a n g e in th e a ttitu d e o f th e p o p u la tio n , n o r , in vi ew of hi s pas texperi ence s, i n the m i nd of the re fugee. Id. A pp l yi ng thi s a nal ys i s, the B IA i n C hen g ra nt ed hu m ani t ar i an as yl um t o an appl i c a ntw ho ha d be e n di s abl e d by t or tur e a nd the de ni a l of m e di c a l c a r e dur i ng C hi na ’ s “ C ul tur a l R e vol ut i on, ” a nd w ho w a s s uf f e r i ng f r om de pr e s s i on a nd s ui c i da l thought s . I d. a t19- 21. T hi s c at egory of a sy l um i s now codi fi ed at8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 13 (b)( 1)(i i i ), w hi c h pr ovi de s tha ta n I J m a y gr a nta n appl i c a nthum a ni t a r i a n a s y l um on a di s c r e t i ona ry ba s i s i f

the appl i c a ntha s de m ons tr a t e d “ c om pe l l i ng r e a s ons f orbe i ng u n w i l l i n g o r u n ab l e t o retu rn t o th e co u n try ari si n g o u to f th e sev eri ty o f th e p ast pe r s e c ut i on, ” or“ ar e a s onabl e pos s i bi l i ty tha the ors he m a y s uf f e rothe rs e r i ous h a rm u p o n r e m o v a l t o th a tc o u n try . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 0 8 . 1 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i i i ) ( A) , ( B ) . As d i scu ssed ab o v e, “ [t ] h e b u rd en o f p ro o f i s o n th e ap p l i can tfo r asyl u m t o est ab l i sh tha the i s ar e f

uge e . . . . T he t e s t i m ony of the appl i c a nt , i f

c r e di bl e , m a y be s u f f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n th e b u r d e n o f p r o o f w i th o u tc o rr o b o r a t i o n . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 ( a ) . We h a v e n o ti n ap r e v i o u s o p i n i o n ap p l i e d th i s r e g u l a t i o n . T h e B I A, how e ve r , ha s i nt e rpr e t e d thi s f orm of r e l i e f t o r e qui r e a n appl i c a ntf i r s tt o s howAs persua sive authority, other c ircuits that have reviewe d applications for humanitarian 9 asylum have conc luded that this relief is re serve d for the most extraordinar y case s. See Gonaha sa v. U.S. I

NS, 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that “ [e] ligibility for a sylum ba se d o n s e verity

of pers e cuti on

alon eis re serv e d f

or themos t atroc iou s a

bu se ” ); B uc ar v . I

NS, 109 F.3d 399, 405 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (cha rac terizing humanitarian asylum as beingreserved f or situations such as the Ger man J ews, the vic tims of the Chinese “Cultural Revolution,” and survivors of the Cambodian g enocide ); Kra stev v. I NS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) (explainingthat pa st p ers e cuti on mus t ha vebe en s o s e verethat it

would “ sose ar a

pers on with distressing a ssociations with his native country that it would be inhumane to forc e him to return there , even though he is in no dang er of future persecution”) (inter nal quotation omitted). 21 “ s e ve r e ha rm ” a nd “ l ong- l a s t i ng e f f e c t s . ” S e e I n r e N - M - A , 22 I & N D e c . 312, 326 ( B I A 1998) ; s e e a l s o M a z a r i e gos v. O f f i c e of U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 241 F . 3d 1320, 1 3 2 7 n . 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g th a ta n a g e n c y ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f i t s o wn r e g u la tio n s is e n title d to “g r e a t d e f e r e n c e ,” a n d th a t “[ t]h e d e g r e e o f d e f e r e n c e is es peci al l y gre ati n the fi el d o f i m m i grat i on ”) . 9 I n th e in s ta n t c a s e , c o n tr a ry to J a s e m ’s a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l, th e I J e x p lic itly s ta te d th a t h e h a d c o n s id e r e d th e ap p lic ab ility o f h u m a n ita r ia n a s y lu m . N everthel es s, the IJconcl ud ed thatthe re cord di d n otre fl ec tthatJa se m w ou l d fac e p r o b le m s o n h is r e tu rn to I r a q , o th e rth a n th o s e a s s o c ia te d w ith e a rn in g aliv in g . I nde e d, a tthe t i m e of

the he a r i ng, J a s e m ’ s w i f e , s on, m othe r , f

ours i s t e r s , a nd a brother s t i l l w er e l i vi ng i n the B aghd ad ar ea . M oreover, al tho ug h Jas em t es t i fi ed tha t , f orape r i od of

appr oxi m a t e l y t e n y e a r s , he s uf f e r e d r e pe a t e d de t e nt i ons a nd i nt e rr oga t i ons , i nc l udi ng be i ng be a t e n on one oc c a s i on a nd be i ng pl a c e d i n ar oom w i th a snake, he di d n ott es t i fythatthi s tre atm entre sul t ed i n “ se vere harm ” or22

“ l ong- l a s t i ng e f

f e c t s . ” S e e I n r e N - M - A , 22 I & N D e c . a t326. T hus , w e c onc l ude tha tJ a s e m f

a i l e d t o s how e i the re xtr e m e pa s tpe r s e c ut i on orc om pe l l i ng r e a s ons w hy hu m ani t ar i an as yl um w as w arra nt ed i n h i s c as e. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 13 (a ), ( b ) ( 1 ) ( iii) ( A ) , ( B ) . I s s u e 3 : T h e I J ’ s a n d t h e B I A ’ s c o n c lu s io n s t h a t J a s e m w a s n o t s t a t u t o r ily

e l i g i bl e f o r w i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o v a lunde r t he C A T Ja se m l as tar gu es thatthe IJand B IA erre d i n fai l i ng t o con si der i nd ependent l y J as em ’ s c l ai m for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T . Ja se m as se rts th at th e I J w ro n g ly d en ied Ja se m ’s claim fo r C A T re li ef b as ed o n th e I J’s f in d in g th a t J a s e m la c k e d c r e d ib ility , a n d , th u s , ig n o r e d d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e in the r e c or d r e f

l e c t i ng tha tm e m be r s of S a dda m H us s e i n’ s r e gi m e s t i l l w e r e t or tur i ng and k i l l i ng Ir aqi ci t i ze ns. Ja se m concl ud es that , because he e st abl i shed pastt orture an d th ato p p o n en t s o f th e reg i m e ch an g e i n Iraq st i l l are t o rtu ri n g ci v i l i an s, h i s case s h o u ld b e r e m a n d e d to th e I J f o rin d e p e n d e n t c o n s id e r a tio n o f h is C A T c la im . A s di s c us s e d above , w e r e vi e w both the I J ’ s a nd the B I A ’ s de c i s i ons de ny i ng C A T r e l i e f

, s e e C ha c on- B ot e r o, N o. 04- 16422, m a nus c r i ptop. a t5, a nd th e i rf a c tu a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n s a r e r e v i e we d u n 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 , s e e Al N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at12 83 -84. T o b e e nt i t l ed t o m andat ory w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al unde rthe C A T , a n appl i c a ntm us te s t abl i s h tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha the o rs h e w o u l d b e t o r tu r e d i f r e mo v e d t o th e p r o p o s e d c o u n try o f r e mo v a l . ” 8 C. F. R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2 ). “ T o rtu re” i s d efi n ed as:23

a n y a c t b y w h ic h s e v e r e p a in o rs u f f e r in g , w h e th e rp h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l, i s i nt e nt i ona l l y i nf

l i c t e d on ape r s on f

ors uc h purpos e s a s obt a i ni ng f r om hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on i nf orm a t i on orac onf

e s s i on, pu ni shi ng hi m or her f

or an acthe or she or a thi rd pers on has c om m i tt e d ori s s us pe c t e d orha vi ng c om m i tt e d, ori nt i m i da t i ng or c oe r c i ng hi m orhe rorathi r d pe r s on, orf ora ny r e a s on ba s e d on di s c r i m i na t i on of

a ny ki nd, w he n s uc h pa i n ors uf f e r i ng i s i nf

l i c t e d by o ra t th e in s tig a tio n o f

o rw ith th e c o n s e n t o ra c q u ie s c e n c e o f ap u b lic o ffi ci al o r o th er p erso n act i n g i n an o ffi ci al cap aci ty. 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) .

“ T or tur e i s a n e xtr e m e f orm of c rue l a nd i nhum a n tr e a tm e nta nd doe s not i ncl ud e l es se r f

orm s of c ruel , i nh um an or degradi ng tre atm entor pu ni shm entthat do nota m ountt o t or tur e . ” 8 U . S . C . § 208. 18( a ) ( 2) . W e ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe b u r d e n o f

p r o o f f o ra n ap p l i c a n ts e e k i n g wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l u n d e rth e CAT, l i ke thatfor a n app l i ca ntse eki ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the IN A , i s hi gh er th a n th e b u r d e n im p o s e d o n a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t. A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 3 - 0 4 . T hus , i f ape t i t i one rf

a i l s t o de m ons tr a t e a“ w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on” s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a n a s y lu m c la im , h e o rs h e lik e w is e c a n n o t d e m o n s tr a te “to r tu r e ” s u f

f ic ie n t to w a rr a n t r e lie f

u n d e rth e C A T . I d . H e r e , be c aus e J a s e m i s notc ha l l e ngi ng the I J ’ s a nd the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons thathe fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e a“ w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on , ” he c anno tm ee t the hi gh erbu rden of dem on stra t i ng “ t orture” suff i ci entt o w arra ntC A T re l i ef . S ee id . R e g a r d le s s , e v e n if

J a s e m e s tab lis h e d th a t, u p o n h is r e tu rn to I r a q , h e w ill su ffer “an ex trem e fo rm o f cru el an d i n h u m an treatm en t ” atth e h an d s o f h i s p ast24

pe r s e c ut or s w ho ha ve r e m a i ne d i n I r a q, s e e 8 U . S . C . § 208. 18( a ) ( 2) , hi s a r gum e nt f a ils . A lth o u g h J a s e m is a r g u in g th a t th e I J a n d th e B I A e rr o n e o u s ly r e lie d s o le ly on the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on i n de ny i ng hi m w i thhol di ng of rem o v al u n d er th e C A T , th e reco rd refl ect s th atth e IJ an d th e B IA , atl east i m pl i ci t l y, al so exam i ned Iraq’ s c hang ed coun trycond i t i on s. M oreover, Ja se m has no tchal l enged the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on that , fol l ow i ng the dem i se of S addam H us s e i n’ s r e gi m e , I r a q’ s of f i c i a l gove rnm e ntha s c ha nge d, a nd the s e pe r s e c ut or s no lo n g e ra r e in c o n tr o l. T h u s , ap p ly in g § 2 0 8 .1 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ’s d e f in itio n o f “to r tu r e ,” Ja se m fa i l ed t o sho w that , on re turn t o Ira q, he w i l l be t ortured by a “ pu bl i c off i ci al orothe rpe r s on a c t i ng i n a n of f i c i a l c apa c i ty . ” S e e 8 C . F . R . § 208. 18( a ) ( 1) . T he I J ’ s a nd the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons tha tJ a s e m w a s note l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe C A T , the r e f or e , w e r e s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d a nd s houl d be a f f i rm e d. S e e A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1283- 84 A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tw e a r e f or e c l os e d unde rthe I I R I R A f r om e i the rr e m a ndi ng J a s e m ’ s c a s e t o the I J orthe B I A , orc ons i de r i ng ne w e vi de nc e of changed cou ntrycond i t i on s. W e a l so concl ud e thatJa se m has f ai l ed t o sho w that the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on w a s nots uppor t e d by “ s pe c i f i c , c oge nt re as on s, ” or w as no tbase d o n sub st ant i al evi dence i n the re cord. Ja se m has f ai l ed t o sho w that , as sum i ng the avai l abi l i ty of hum ani t ar i an as yl um , thi s e xtra ordi nary re l i ef w as w arra nt ed i n thi s c as e. F urtherm ore, because J as em fa i l ed t o sho w that25

he w i l l be “ t or tur e d” by a“ publ i c of f i c i a l ” on hi s r e turn t o I r a q, the I J ’ s a nd the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons tha tJ a s e m w a s nots t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f orw i thhol di ng of re m ov al un der the C A T w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. W e, there fore , d e n y J a s e m ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.