2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-6-2004 

# Al l auddin v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1443

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Al l audd in v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 103. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/103* The Honorable Will iam W Schwarzer, Seni or United St ates Dis tri ct Judge for the Northern Dist

rict of California, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ No. 03-1443
SAVAR AL LAUDDI N; GULAM SERV ER RAHMATH; HARONE J AAVED, Petitioners

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENER AL OF TH E UNITED STA TES, Respondent

_______________ On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Board No. A72-020-034)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on May 24, 2004
BE FO RE : RO TH and ST AP LE TO N, Circuit Judges , and SCHWARZER, * Senior Dist rict Judge (Opinion fi led: December 6, 2004)** We recognize, of course, that t he Department of Homeland Security recent ly took ove r t he fu nc ti ons of

th e f or mer INS . F orth e s ak e o f c onv en ie nc e, an d be ca us e the INS was the acto r at

most times relev ant to thi s appe al, we conti nue her e to refer to the INS. 

### 2 O P I N I O N

ROTH , Circuit

Judge :
Pet it io ne rs se ekre vi ew o f a fi na l o rd erof de por tati on. For

th e r ea so ns th at

fo ll ow, we will denythe petiti on. On December 20, 1998, the I mmigrat ion a nd Natur ali zati on Serv ice ( INS) ** charged Sarvar Allauddi n, Gulam Sarvar Ramath, and Harone Jaa ved with removalunder
sec tion 237 (a)(1 )(B ) of the I mm igra tion and Na tion ality A ct (IN A) , 8 U .S.C . § 1227(a)( 1)(B) (2004) , for over stay ing their visa s. Sar var and Gulam are hus band and wife, and Haron i s thei r son. They ar e all native s and citizens of I ndia and ent ered the Un ited Sta tes on Au gust 2 1, 198 8, as n on-im migra nt B- 2 visito rs with perm ission to remain i n the Unite d States for a te mporary period not to exceed February 20, 1989. They remained i n the Unite d States beyond t hat dat e without pr oper authorization from the IN S. Appearing before the Immigr ation J udge (IJ) on July19, 2000, pe titioners , thr ough*** Since the time of Petiti oners’ appeal t o the BIA, the str eamlini ng regulat ions have bee n m ove d to a dif fere nt se ction of C hap ter 8 of th e C ode of F ede ral R egu latio ns. See id. § 1003 .1(a)(7).

  Sectio n 3.1( a)(7)(ii) p rovid es, in rele vant p art: Th e sin gle B oar d M em ber . . . ma y affi rm th e de cisio n of the . . . Immigration Judge, without opi nion, i f the Board Member determines that the result reached in the decision u nder review was co rrect; that any errors in the de cisi on under revi ew were harmless or nonmateri al; a nd that (A) the i ssue on appealis squarelycontrol led byexisting Board or fe deral 

### 3 counsel, conceded removabi lit y. They sought

reli ef from removal by petit ioning for political asy lum, withholding of removal, vol untary departure and withhol ding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Their appl ications for political asy lum were based on f ear of the pe rsecu tion the y wou ld fac e if fo rced to return to Ind ia. Th e IJ de nied th eir applications on the basis of an adverse c redibility determination but gran ted voluntary departure. Petitioners filed a timely notice of appeal w ith the BIA . In an order issue d Janua ry 23, 20 03, the BIA affirm ed the IJ’s de cision w ithout o pinion . Petition ers filed a time ly petition for re view of the BIA ’s dec ision. T hey alleg e that th e BIA erred b y summ arily affirmi ng, without

a separate opinion, the removalorders pur suant t o the st reamli ning regulations of 8 C.F.R . § 3.1(a)(7) (2004 ). ** * The y also con tend th at the IJ in correc tly dec ided their app licatio ns. I. Petitioners assert

that t he BIA committed reve rsibl e error because i t affi rmed the IJ’s d ecis ion wit hou t issu ing a se par ate o pin ion
. See id. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii). **** We havecourt pr ecedent and doe s not i nvolve the applic ation of precedent

to a novel fact si tuati on; or (B) the fa ctualand legalquesti ons rai sed on appeal are so i nsubstant ial t hat three- Member review is not warranted. 8 C.F.R . § 3.1(a)(7)(ii). 

### 4 juri sdiction over fi nal order s of removal i ssued bythe BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (2004). A fter the Petitioners filed their pe tition for review o f the BIA order, this Cou rt held that the s treaml ining r egulations and t he BIA’s authority

to is sue an order

affirmi ng the IJ ’s order

without a s eparat e opinion doe s not vi olate the INA or the United State s Co nstitu tion
. Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F.3d 228, 234-45 (3d Cir . 2003) ( en banc). “The fact that t he revie w is done by one member of the BIA and that the deci sion i s not
accom panied b y a fully reasoned BIA decision m ay be less desirable from the petitioner’s point of vi ew, but i t does not make the proces s consti tuti onally ‘unfair .’” Id. at 24 3-4 4. Th eref ore , the m ere f act th at the BIA strea mlin ed th e ap pea l is no t rev ersib le err or. II. Petitioners also ar gue that their applic ations were wrongly decided. Where the BIA adopts the I mmigrati on Judge’s dec isi on as it s own, we review the merits by reviewing t

he Immigration Judge’ s decis ion as t he final decisi on of the agency .” Chen v. Ash croft , No. 02-2 978, 200 4 W L 362 287, at *80 2 (3d C ir. Feb. 25, 2004 ). To b e gran ted asylum as ref ugee s, app licants m ust esta blish th at they are u nable to return to their homeland “because of pers ecuti on or a well- founded fear of per secuti on on account of r ace, r eligi on, nationali ty , membershi p in a part icular soci al group, or poli tica l

### 5

opinion. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1101( a)(42) (2004). Whether an appli cant has de monstrat ed “persecut

ion” or a “ well-founde d fear of per secuti on” is a fa ctual determi nation reviewed und er th e su bsta ntial evid enc e sta nda rd. Abd ille v. Ash croft , 242 F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001). U nder this standa rd, we w ill uphold finding s of fact to the e xtent they are “support ed by r easonable , subst antia l, a nd probati ve evidence on t he record c onsider ed as a whole.” Bal asu bra manr im v . I NS , 143 F.3d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1998) (i nternalquotati on and cit ation omi tted) . Simil arly , advers e credi bili ty determi nations are al so revi ewed for sub stan tial ev iden ce, see D ia , 353 F .3d at 2 47, an d m ust be uph eld un less “a ny reaso nable adjudic ator would be c ompelled t o conclude t o the contrary .” Ga o v. A shcro ft , 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir . 2002) ( citi ng INA § 242(b)(4)( B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B)) (i nternal quotati on omitt ed). Only discr epancies that “ involve t he heart of the asy lum clai m” can sup por t an a dve rse c red ibility fin din g. Id . “[M]inor i nconsistencies” do not provi de an ade qua te ba sis fo r an adv erse cred ibility fin din g. Id
. We have review ed the record in its entire ty and fin d sub stantial e viden ce to support the a dverse cred ibilitydetermination . Petitioners argue that, bec ause they are M uslim , they w ill be per sec uted by the prim arily H ind u po pul ation if re turn ed to Ind ia. However, when Allauddin, the father, testi fied before the IJ , he di d not provi de any specific or substanti al evidence of past persecutions. As the IJ noted, Allauddin “paint[s] with . . . [a] br oad brush. ” All aud di n al le ged th at , t hr oug hou t h is li fe, th e Hi ndu maj or ity harmed h im,

### 6

disc rimi nate d ag ains t him , har asse d hi m, p erse cute d hi m, a nd t hre aten ed h is life
. Neverthel ess, Allauddin was a f light atte ndant for t

he government- run Indi a Airli nes for
seve n and a half years bef ore m ovin g to the Un ited Sta tes. D uring this time , Allau ddin receiv ed co mp limen tary airline tick ets to the Un ited Sta tes. W hen A llaudd in did f inally decide to leav e India in M ay 1987, he rem ained in the U nited States for o nly a short period of t

ime. On thi s fir st t

rip, he came alone, without hi s wife and son. After returning to I ndia for acouple of months , Allauddin deci ded to ret urn to t he United States . In November 1987, he did so, accompanied byhis wife and s on. Incons ist ent with Allauddi n’s te sti mony regarding how bad things were for him as a Muslim in Indi a, Allauddin de cided t o take hi s family back to Indi a after

only a few months in the United States . Again this i s inconsi stent with Allauddi n’s te sti mony about pa st per secuti ons of hims elf an d his f amily. If pe titioners w ere truly fe arful o f bein g per secu ted in In dia, it is diff icult to u nde rstan d w hy the y wo uld retu rn to the c oun try they f eare d so mu ch. Petitioners ultimately returned to the U nited States in A ugust 19 88 and have b een here
eve r sinc e. Allauddin’ s test

imony was al so inconsi stent with the St ate Department’s 1996 rep ort o n In dia, Comme nts o n Co untry Con di ti ons and Asy lu m Cl ai ms , and w ith petition ers’ asylum applic ation. T he 19 96 C oun try Repo rt states tha t “[a]p prox imate ly 100 mill ion Muslims l ead productive li ves in I ndia. They l ive, work and worship without interference bythe Government. ” The IJ found that petiti oners’ va gue all egati ons of

### 7

persecution w ere inconsistent w ith the specific findin gs of the D epartmen t of State. In their applic ation f

or asy lum, they made no cl aim that theyhad been beate n by Hindus or that t hey had received t

hreats against

their lives . These i nconsistencies go to the heart of their asylum claim s and wo uld n ot com pel an y reason able f actfin der to f ind tha t their clai ms were credibl e. III For th e f or eg oi ng rea so ns , w e wi llde ny th e p etit io n f orre vi ew.