### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 7, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1639 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 77- 911- 547 CHESNEL FORGUE, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on o f the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 7, 200 5) Before BA RKE TT and HU LL , C ircuit Judg es, and ED EN FIE LD , D istrict Judg e. * HU LL , C ircuit Judg e: Ch es ne l F or gue , pr oc ee din g pr o se , pe tit ion s f or r ev ie wof

af ina l or de r ofBe cause For gue’s r emoval proc eeding s commence d afte r April 1, 1997, the e ffe ctive 1 date of the I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996 ( “I I RI RA”), this case is g overne d by

the per manent provisions of the I NA, as a mended by

the I I RI RA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States A tt’y Gen., 321 F .3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). 2 th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) , whi ch affi rm ed , wit ho utop in io n, a decision of the Im

m igration Ju dge (“ IJ”) deny ing Forgue’ s claim s for political asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval und er the I m m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A” ), and relief under the United Nations Conventio n on Torture and O ther

1 Cr ue l, I nhum anor

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”) . F or the r ea sons dis cu sse d be low , w e af

fi rm the BI A ’ s de ci sio n. I. BACKGROUND Forgue, a Ha itian nation al, entered the U nited States illegally on February 15, 200 1. H e la te r fi le d a ppl ic at ion s f

or a sy lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and pr ote ct ionund er

A rt ic le 3 of

the CA T , c la im ing he ha d su ff er ed pe rs ec uti on i n Ha iti because of his poli tical activities. F orgue told th e IJ that he allow ed politi cal candi da te s to spe ak

a t hi s f am ily f ar m in H ai ti. I n a ddi tio n, he pe rm itt ed aS en at e can di da te forth e “ OPL” pa rty to u se hi s t ru ckto reac h v ot ers in ou tl y in g a reas . Forgue also stated that he suffered per secution as a result of his work as an election m onito r. Forgue testified that he served as a pollin g official for the May 2000 election in Haiti. H e told the IJ that a m ay oral candidate fr om the Fan mi3

La va las p ar ty kn o wn as “ Ti Pi erre ,” al o n g wi th m emb er s o f t h e c an d i d at e’s en toura ge , de m an de d to vot e at the pol lin g lo catio n F or gue ha d be ena ssi gne d to m onito r. Forgue explained that he turned the ind ividu als aw ay because they

we re not a t the ir a ssi gne d po lli ng l oc at ion . S ev er al day s a ft er the e le ct ion , F or gue cl ai m edhe was d ou se d i n a ci d b y TiPi erre forno t al lo win g h im to vo te . A cc or din g to F or gue , his tr oubl es c ont inu ed a s th e N ove m

be r 2000 e le ct ion ap pr oa ch ed . T iP ie rr e le ar ne d th at F or gue ha d gr an te d am em be r of the O PL the use of his truck durin g the May 2000 election. TiP ierre insistedon being allowed to u se the sam e ve hic le f

or his ow n c am

pa igne ff orts. Whe n F or gue r ef

use d, T iP ie rr e thr eate ne d hi m

w ithse ri ous harm . S om et im e af te r thi s in ci de nt, F or gue t e s t i f i e dh e f l e dH a i t i a f

t e r T i P i e rr e an dag r o up o f

h i s s up p o rt e r s b u rn e dh i s h o me an d be at up h is s on. F or gue tol d th e IJthat he f ears that i f he r et

ur ns t o H ai ti he w ill be harm ed

by m em be rs of T iP ie rr e’ s F

anm i L av ala s p arty. T he I J r ej ec te d F or gue ’ s c la im s be ca use he f ound that F or gue ha d no t pr ovi de d c re dib le te sti m ony . F or gue te sti fi ed that hi s w ork a s an e le ct ionm oni tor wa s the reason he w as attacked w ith acid. H owever , F orgue never m entioned the se sig nif

ic an t e ve nts in his a sy lum appl ic at ion . H e al so d id n ot m en tio n inhis ap pli catio n th at F

anm i L av ala s m em

be rs phy sic al ly

a ssa ult ed his son . D ur ing his interview bef

ore an asy lum

officer , he likewise fa iled to m ake any ref erenceBe cause the B IA af firmed the I J ’s orde r without opinion, the I J ’s dec ision constitut es 2 the final a g ency

deter mination to be review ed by this Court. Gonz alez-Orope za, 321 F.3d at 1333. 4 whatsoever to these ter

rible acts. It w as not unt il Forgue’ s hearing before the I J th athe fir stm en ti on edth es e ev en ts . T he I J de nie d F or gue ’ s a ppl ic at iona ft er

m ak ing the a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n and the or de r w as late r af fi rm ed by the BI Aw ith out

opi nio n on N ove m be r 28, 200 3. T his appe al f oll ow ed . 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e re view the I J’ s factual deter m ination s under the sub stantial evidence test. D -Muhum ed v. United States Att’ y Ge n., 388 F.3d 814, 817-18 (11th Cir. 2004 ); A l N aj

j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F . 3d 1 262, 128 3- 84 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . U nde r thi s hig hly de fe re nti al te st, w e “ af

fi rm the [ IJ ’ s] de ci sio n if

it is supp orte d by re as ona ble , sub stanti al , and p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s a w hol e. ” A l N aj

j ar , 257 F . 3d at 12 84 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns om itt ed ). “ T hus, w e do n ot e nga ge in a de nov o r ev ie wof f ac tua l f ind ing s by

the [I J] . S im ilarl y , w e cannot f ind , or c onsi de r, f

ac ts n ot r ai se d inthe a dm ini str at ive fo rum , nor

c anw e re w ei gh the e vid en ce f ro m sc ratc h. ” A de fe m i v. A shc ro ft , 386 F. 3d 1 022, 102 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( enbanc ), pe tit ionf or c er t. f ile d, ( U . S. O ct . 28, 20 04 ) (No . 04 -7 94 4) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) .5

Furtherm ore, “ [u] nder the subst antial evidence test, w e re view the r ecord evidence in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n and drawa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of that de ci sio n. ” I d. As w ith oth er f

actual findings, “ [c] redibility determ ination s likewise ar e re vie w ed und er the sub stanti al e vid en ce te st. ” D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 8 (c iti ng G ao v. A shc ro ft , 299 F . 3d 2 66, 271 ( 3d C ir . 200 2) ). T ha t i s, “ [t ] he tr ie r of fa ct m ust de te rm ine c re dib ili ty , and this c ourt m ay not sub sti tut e its j udgm en t f or that of the [IJ] with re spect to credibility findings .” Id. (citing VasquezMondragon v. INS , 560 F. 2d 12 25, 1226 (5th Cir. 1977 )). III. DISC USSION Be ca use thi s c as e re vol ve s aro und the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n, we fi rs td i s cu s s wh at an al i en n ee d s t o es t ab l i s h i no rd ert o qu al i fy fo r a s ylu m . We the n di sc uss w ha t r ole an a lie n’ s c re dib ili ty play s inthe a sy lum

pr oc es s. A n a lie n w ho arr ive s inor is pr es en t i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s m ay

appl y f or asy lum . 8 U. S. C. § 115 8(a)( 1). To qualify for asy lum , the a lien m

ust be a

“ refugee. ” 8 U .S .C. § 1158 (b)(1). A“ refugee” is defined as any person who is outs ide any country of such person’ s nationalit y or, in the c as e of

ape rs on h av ing no n at ion al ity , is out sid e any c ountry in w hic h su chpe rs on l as t ha bit ua ll y res ide d, and who i s un ab le or unw ill ing to re tur

n to , and i s un able or

unw ill ing to av ai l hi m se lf or herself of the protec tion o f, th at co untry because of per secution or a6

w el l- fo unde d f

ear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount of r ac e, r el igi on, nationalit y , m em

bership in a pa rt i cular social group, or political op in io n . . . . 8 U . S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A ); se e D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 8; A l N aj j ar , 257 F . 3d at 1284. “ The a sy lum

applicant carr ies the burden of provin g statuto ry ‘ refugee’ status . ” D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 8.

“ To establish asy lum

eligibilit y , the a lien m

ust establis h a w ell-founded fear that his or her politi cal opinion (or other statutorily listed factor) w ill cause harm or suf fe ri ng tha t r ise s to the le ve l of pe rs ec uti on. ” I d. ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and citations o m itted). I n order to dem onstrate a sufficient connection between futur e pe rs ec uti on and the pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty , an a lie n is r equir ed “ to p re se nt specific, detailed fac ts sho wing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution on account ” of such a protected a ctivity . Id. ( internal quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). E sta bli shi ng a his tor y of pa st p er se cu tio n cr eate s apr es um

pti on tha t an a lie n ha s aw el l- fo unde d f ear of f uture pe rs ec uti on, al tho ugh that pr es um

pti on c anbe r eb utt ed

by the gov er

nm en t. I d. T he a sy lum

appl ic an t m

ust e sta bli sh e lig ibi lity

f or a sy lum by of fe ri ng

“ cr ed ibl e, dir ec t, and s pe ci fi c ev ide nc e in the r ec or d. ” S ee S an ghav. I N S, 103 F.3 d 1 48 2, 1 48 7 (9 th Cir . 19 97 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . T he te sti m ony

of an a ppl ic an t, if

f ound to be c re dib le , is al one suf fi ci en t t o7

establish th ese fa ctors. D- Muhum ed, 388 F. 3d at 818 -19. S ee 8 C. F. R. § 20 8. 13( a) ( “ T he te sti m ony of the appl ic an t, if

c re dib le , m ay

be suf fi ci en t t o sustain the burden of proof without corroboration .” ); 8 C. F. R. § 208 .16(b) ( sam e). Co nve rs el y , an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n a lon e m ay be suf fi ci en t t o supp ort the de nia l of

an a sy lum

appl ic at ion . D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9 ( ci tin g Si ngh- K aur v. I N S, 183 F . 3d 1 147, 114 9- 53 ( 9thCi r. 199 9) ); se e D iav. A shc ro ft , 353 F.3d 228 , 247 (3d Cir. 2003 ) (e n banc) (“ An alien’ s credibility , by itself, m ay sa tis fy his bur de n, or

doo m his c la im . ”) ; S idhu v. I N S, 220 F . 3d 1 085, 109 0 ( 9th Cir. 2000 ) (“ Th[e ] language [in 8 C.F .R. § 208.13] plainly indicates that if the trier of f ac t e ith er doe s no t be lie ve the appl ic an t or doe s no t kn oww ha t t o be lie ve , the ap pli cant’ s f

ai lur e to c or

ro bor at e his te sti m ony

c anbe f at al to his a sy lum application.”). Of co u rs e, an ad v er s e c re d i b i l i ty d et erm i n at i o nd o es n o tal l ev i at e t h e I J ’s dutyto consid er other e vidence produced byan asy lum applicant. T hat is, the IJ m ust sti ll co nsi de r al l e vid en ce intro duc ed by the appl ic an t. I f the appl ic an t pr oduc es no e vid en ce oth er than hi s te sti m ony , an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity determ ination is alone sufficient to sup port the denial of an asy lum application. If, how ev er , the appl ic an t pr oduc es oth er e vid en ce of

pe rs ec uti on, w hate ve r fo rm it m ay take , the I J m

ust c onsi de r that e vid en ce , and i t i s no t su ff ic ie nt f or the I J to8

re ly sol el y on an a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n intho se ins tanc es . F urthe r, the IJ m us t o ffersp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r an ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g. Se e DMuhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9. O nc e ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing is m ad e, the bur de n is on the appl ic an t a lie n to sho wthat the I J’ s c re dib ili ty de ci sio n w as not supp or te d b y

“ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s” or wa s n otba se d o n s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. Se e id. ( “ T he I J pr ovi de d c oge nt r ea sons f or his c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n and tho se r ea sons are sup porte d by sub stanti al e vid en ce in the r ec or d m uc h li ke any fa ct ua l de te rm inatio n. ” ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed )) ; D ai lid e v. U nit ed S ta te s A tt’ y

G en . , 387 F . 3d 1 335, 134 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . Ac re dib ili ty determ ination , like any

fac t finding , “ ‘ m ay

not be overturned un less the record co m pe ls i t. ’ ” D -M uhum ed , 388 F . 3d at 81 9 ( quot ing L ope z D e Je sus v. I N S, 312 F. 3d 15 5, 161 (5th Cir. 2002)). Consid ering these factors, in this case we conclude that substantial evid ence supp orts the I J’ s c onc lus ionthat F or gue w as not c re dib le w he n he c la im ed that he ha d su ff er ed pe rs ec uti on i n H ai ti due to his pol iti ca l a ct ivi tie s and tha t the I J gave spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons f or his c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n. A m ong oth er thi ngs, the IJ noted that prior to th e hear ing Forgue never m entioned th at: (1) he had been an el ec tio n m oni tor

in the May

200 0 e le ct ion ; ( 2) he ha d pr ev en te d F anm i L av ala s m em be rs f ro m c om m itt ing e le ct ionf

ra ud; ( 3) he ha d be ena tta ck ed w itha ci d; o rThe a sylum application specific ally asked whether

For gue had be en involved in any 3 po lit ic a l a c tiv iti e s and

if any me mbe rs of

his fa mil y ha d b e e n mi str e ate d b y

a uth or iti e s in

his home country . B e c a us e F or gue ha s f

a ile d to e sta

bli sha c la im o f a sylum

on the me ri ts, he ne c e ssa

ri ly 4 fails to establish elig ibilit y for withholdingof re moval or protec tion under CAT. Al Na jjar, 257 F.3d at 1292-93. 9 (4) his son had b een severe ly beaten by

m em bers of the F

anm i L av ala s . I n li ght 3 of the se om iss ion s, sub stanti al e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity determ ination . Beca

use Forgue did no t produce corroborating evidence for the IJ to consid er and the IJ foundhis testim ony wa s not credible, substantial evid ence al so s uppo rt s th e IJ ’ s de nia l of F or gue ’ s a sy lum

appl ic at ion . 4 PETITION DENIED.