Pur suant t o Fed. R

. App. P. 43( c) ( 2) , At t or ney G ener al Er i c H

. H ol der , Jr

. has been subst i t ut ed * f orf or m erAt t or neyG ener al M i chael B. M ukasey as t he r espond ent i n t hi s case.

* * T he Hon. John R

. Adam s, U ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f or t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of O hi o, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on. NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION Fi le Name: 09a 0652n.0 6 No. 08- 3469 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
SH IQI AN G D ON G, Pet itione r,
v. ER IC H . H OLD ER , J R. , Atto rn ey Gene ra l, * Res pondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PET IT ION FOR REVIEW FROM A DE CI SION OF THE BOAR D OF IM MI GRATION APP EALS

Before: N OR RI S, a nd C OLE, C ircui t J udg es; AD AM S, D is tr ict J udg e. * JOH N R. AD AM S, D is tr ict J udg e. Shi q ian g D ong , a nat ive and ci ti z en of C hin a, peti ti ons for rev iew

of the Board of

Immig ra ti on App eal s ( “t he BI A” or “ the B oard” )’ s o rd er deny ing hi s a ppl ic ati ons for as y lum , w it hhol din g of re mov al, and protecti on unde r the United Nations Con v ent ion Against T orture (“CAT ”). For the followi ng reasons, w e DENY the p eti ti on. I. Bac kg ro und Peti ti oner

l eft Chi na i n J uly

2003. H e trav e le d t o H o n g Kong , t hen C uba, and ent ered t he U ni te d St at es from M ex i c o on A ug us t 27 , 20 03 , w i th t he h el p of s mu gg lers. W it hin one y ear , he filed an a ppl ic ati on for asy lum throug h couns el. Peti ti oner soug ht reli efDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 based on a cl aim that he had been persec uted under Chi na’ s family -p lan nin g l aw s a nd w as subj ectto future persec uti on on the s ame g ro und. In his appli cat ion , the petit ion er stated that in 2002, at ag e 17, he b eg an l iv ing i n the city of Fuzhou w ith Chen Min Huei, his 16-year-old gir lf riend. She beca me pregnan t in Februa ry 2 003

. T he pregnan cy

ca me t o the a tten tion of t he local fam ily

p lann ing of

f ice in Ma y 2003. M in Hue i w as forced to hav e an abor ti on, a nd th e c o u p le w as fined and
ordered to att end an educa ti on c amp. (S ee JA 256. ) Peti ti one r, w ho s peaks M andar in Chi nese, appeared w it h c ounse l at t he remov al hea ring. He averred b efore the Imm igration Judge (“IJ”) thathe ha d revi ewed his sta tements i n the as y lum appl ic ati on and that the s tatement s w ere cor re ct and “ w hat [ he]
w ant [ed ] to say.” (JA 73-74 ) How ever, the pe titione r testif ied (throu gh an interp reter) before t h e I J s o me w h a td i ffe re n t l y t h a n w h a tw a s s e tfo rt h i n h i s a s y l u m a p p l i c a t ion

. Pet itione r’s testimo ny highlig hte d the fact th at his ap plication lacked signif icant d eta il. Pet itione r testif ied th at he and Min H ue i we re ma rried in a tradition al Chinese
ceremony

on F ebr uar

y 1, 2003. H er

preg nancy

w as dis cov ered in March 2003. H opi ng t o a vo id t h e fa m il y-p la n n in g c a d re s , t h e y d e c id e d t o m o ve
. Be fo re d o in g s o , f ive fa m il ypla nni ng personne l (tw o w omen and three men) came to thei r house

. He, M in Hue i, and his mother

w ere al l tak en to the hospi tal , w here M in H u e i w as forced to underg o an abo rtion. Pet itione r te stif ied tha t w hen h e tried to hold Min Huei’s han d, on e of the of f icials h ith im wit h a f la s h li gh t

. H e w a s t h e n p u s h e d t o t h e gro u n d a n d ki c k e d in t h e ja w. Pet itione r said thathe suf fered bon e f ractures in his han d and later required stitches in his ja w.Dong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 After the abor

ti on, the peti ti oner deci ded that he had to lea v e Chi na. He di d not hav e money

to pay the fine. Pet it ion er

st ated that he di d nothav e money for M in Hue i to trav el w it h hi m, butal so lat er st ated that she did not acc ompany hi m beca use she w as unabl e to obtai n a p ass por t. In S eptember

2003, the peti ti oner

w as ser v ed by the Dep artment of Homel and Secu ri ty w it h a N oti ce to Appear and charg ed w it h bei ng i nadmis si ble to the U nit ed St ates under 8 U. S.C

. § 1182( a) (6 )( A) (i ), for bei ng present w it hout ins pect ion . P eti ti oner conc eded, throug h c ounse l, that he w as re mov abl e as charg ed and fil ed an appl ic ati on for asy lum and for w it hhol din g of re mov al on M arch 3, 20 04. (J A 252- 60) After a hear ing , the IJ i ss ued an oral deci si on deny ing the appl ic ati ons on J uly 24, 2006. Conseq uentl y , the IJ ordered the petiti oner remov ed to China

. Oral De ci si on of the IJ (JA 25-39 ). The IJ conc lud ed that the petit ion er ’s testi mony on re lev ant and mater ial facts w as inc onsi ste nt w it h his appl ic ati on. In p arti cul ar , s he not ed th e di fference betw een t he i nit ial sta tement that itw as his g ir lfri end w ho w as preg nant and t he l ater as ser ti on th at t hey

had been mar ri ed i n a t ra dit ion al ceremony . The IJ al so obser v ed that t he pet it ion er

tes ti fied inc onsi ste ntl y

reg ardin g hi s b ro ken jaw wh e n he first sta ted t hat h e had not req uired
m e d ic a l a t t e n t io n , b u tt h e re a f t e r qu a li f ie d h is t e s t im o n y st a t in g t h a th e h a d re c e ive d f ive stitche s. Petition er state d in his asyl um app lica t io n t hathe ha d learne d of Min H uei’s preg na ncy i n F eb r ua r

y 20 03 , bu t he te s ti fi ed be fore th e IJ th at i t w as M arc h 20 03

. His testim ony w as tha t at the time o f marriage, he w as 19 and she w as 18

. I n fact, giv en h is Decem ber 25 , 198 5-birthd ay, the pet itione r would have bee n 17 at the time o f the Feb ruaryDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469

In A p ril 2 0 0 9 , 5 ,0 0 0 R M B w a s e q u i v a l e n t t o a p p ro x i m a te l y $ 7 3 0 .0 0 U .S . d o l l a rs
. See 1 X E -2 U n i v e rs a l C u rr e n c y C o n v e rte r a t h ttp ://w w w .x e .c o m /u c c /. 200 3 ma rriag e. He testif ied th at he w as follo win g the lunar calen dar. T he IJ, howev er, found that the p eti ti oner di d noti ntroduce ev ide nce of that c alc ula ti on. The “ major

and si g nific ant i ncons is tency ,” ac cordin g to the I J, w as that the p eti ti oner omitted from hi s a ppl ic ati on th e fact that he w as stru ck on t he hand and sus tai ned a f ractured jaw

w hen he w as kicked atthe ho spital. Acco rding to the IJ: The respon dent in his appl ic ati on i s a sk ed s peci fical ly w hat h a rm or mis treatment w as direct ed ag ain st him, w ho c aused i t, et c etera. Here, t he re spond ent s tates merely thathe w as fined 5, 0 0 0 R MB and ordered to 1 atte nd a s pe c i al p rog ram for t hree mo nt hs. T oda y , t he res po nd en t c l ai ms the famil y

planni ng cadre m embers came to his mother ’s home w here the y w ere liv ing, took all three o f t h e m to the hosp ital. He w as struck on his han ds w ith an electric f lashlight w ith such sev eritythathis bone s w ere fract ure[d], pus hed t o the floor , and then ki ck ed in the j aw , and hi s j aw w as broken. N ow here i n hi s a ppl ic ati on does the re spond ent ment ion thi s, and w hen on cross -e x amina ti o n as ked w hy thi s w as not ment ion ed, t he re spond ent q uit e simpl y did not hav e any

reconc il abl e s tatementas to w hy he fail ed to menti on s omethi ng as si g nific ant a s h is i n ju ries

. Res pondent ini ti all y st ated that he recei v ed no medic al atten tio n for h is broken jaw on d ir e c te xa m in a t io n , a n d t h e n st a t e d h e h a d f ive st it c h e s p la c e d in h is ja w. (J A 35) The IJ al so noted the absenc e of anycorroborati on. W hil e the peti ti oner cl aimed to ha v e giv en h is attorne y a lette r f rom his spou se and picture s of the w edd ing, the y w ere nev er su bmitted a s e v ide nce. H e tes ti fied th at M in Hue i w as in Japan and they had communi cat ed on at l eastone occ asi on. (J A 85. ) The De par

tment of Homel and Secur ity (“ DH S” ) submi tted back g ro und i nformati on to t he IJ su g g est ing that a coerci v e one- chi ld pol icy w as not s tr ictl y

enforc ed i n F uji an ( the prov inc e i n w hic h t h e prefecture- lev el ci ty of Fuz hou i s l ocat ed)

. One o f the ex hib it s t heDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 gov ernm entsubm itted , ent itled “ China: Prof ile of Asyl um Claims and Count ry Conditio ns, June 2004," (J A 173- 224) , s tates : “A cc ordin g to the Fuji a n Prov inc ial F amil y Pl anni ng Com mitt ee (FPFPC), the re have bee n no cases of forced abo rtion . . . in Fujian in the last 10 years, butit is imp ossible t o c o n f irm this claim. ” (JA 195 ) Othe r articles sugg est “rethi nki ng of the o ne- chi ld p o lic y in C hin a beg inn ing at about the t ime per iod [t he peti ti oner

] w as there.” ( JA 38) On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , t he pet it ion er dec lared th at he had ev ide nce in Chi na th at Mi n H uei w as forced to hav e an abor ti on but , bec ause his att or ney had not a sk ed for that
ev ide nce, he h ad notg otten i t from Chi na for submi ss ion . (J A 87) H e furt her tes ti fied th at his paren ts had not prepared an af f idavit stating that he had a Chinese w edd ing becau se they are i ll it erate. ( JA 88) Peti ti oner stated that his att or ney had his w eddi ng pi ctu re but, becau se the I J h ad notas ked for pict ures, he had not submitted it to the Cour t. (JA 88, 9 4- 95) Pe ti ti oner

al so tes ti fied th at he had not pai d the fine ass ess ed by the family

pl anni ng author it ies , buthad the n oti ce “a t [ his ] pl ace. ” (JA 90, 94) M oreov er , t he pet it ion er cl aimed that he di d nothav e doc umentati on of hi s t ra dit ion al marr iag e bec a u se h is attor ney had not a sk ed for it , and thathi s a ttor ney had the l etter

from hi s g ir lfri end. ( JA 91, 9 3- 94) Peti ti oner , t hrough counsel , app eal ed to the Board. On M arch 28, 2 008, the B IA adopted and aff ir med the deci si on of t he IJ and dis mis sed the a ppeal of the I J’ s o rd er of
re mov al. ( JA 2) The B oard w as not c onv inc ed by the arg uments adv anced on appe al that the I J’ s fin din g s o f fact , i ncl udi ng her adv erse credi bil ity ass ess ment, had bee n s how n to be “clearly errone ous. ” See 8 C.F.R. § 100 3.1 (d)(3)(i ). T he BIA foun d significa nt th e fact that the p eti ti o n e r d id not menti on hi s fract ured j aw i n the appl ic ati on or

su bmitanyDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 cor ro borati ng ev ide nce: W e dis ag re e w it h the re spond ent’ s arg ument on appeal that the re cord does not a ctu all y

co ntai n i ncons is tenc ies

. The Immig ra ti on J udg e not ed th at t he respo nde nt ha s not ad equate ly ex plaine d the s ig nif icant inco nsisten cy betw een t he respon dent’ s a sy lum appl ic ati on and his tes tim o n y d ur ing the hear ing

. . . . The Immig ra ti on Judg e further noted that the respon dent had subm itted abso lutely no corrobora ting ev iden ce for his claims ot her tha n his re col lecti on of ev ents

. . . . (J A 35) This peti ti on for re v iew foll ow ed.

II. An alysi s A. Standa rd

of Rev iew W here, as i n thi s c ase, the BIA aff ir ms the decis ion of the IJ and spec ific all y

adopt s the p arti cul ar

reason ing of the I J w hil e s uppl ementi ng thatdec is ion w it h c omments of its
ow n, w e rev iew

the IJ’ s deci si on as s uppl emented by the Board. Laz

ar v. Gonz ale s , 500 F. 3d 469, 4 7 4 -7 5 ( 6th C ir . 200 7)

. W e mustsu sta in a dec is ion by the IJ deny ing as y lum if that determi nati on is “s uppor ted b y reason abl e, s ubst anti al, and probati v e ev ide nce on the reco rd co nside red as a w hole .” I.N.S. v. El ias -Zacar

ias , 502 U .S. 478, 481 ( 1992)

. As
w e ha v e recognized, “[u]nd er this deferen tial stan dard , w e ma y not reverse the [IJ's] deter minat ion [as su ppl emented by the Board] si mply

because w e w oul d hav e decid ed th e ma tter dif

feren tly .” Kol

iad a v . I .N.S. , 259 F.3d 48 2, 48 6 (6th Cir. 200 1). Rathe r, to overturn
a n I J ’s r u li n g “we m u s tf in d t h a tt h e e vid e n c e n o to n ly suppo rt s [a cont ra ry] c oncl usi on, b ut
compelsit.” El

ias -Zacar

ias , 502 U.S. at 48 1 n. 1 (em pha sis in orig inal). B. Me ri ts Und er 8 U .S.C

. § 1158(b) , t he Sec re tar y of Homel and Se cur ity or the Atto rn eyDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 Gen eral has a uth orityto grantasyl u m i n h is or her discretion to any alien w ho is a “ref ugee.” See also Che n v . G onzale z , 447 F. 3d 468, 471- 72 (6 th Ci r. 2006)

. A refugee is “a n y p e rs o n wh o is outside any country of such pe rson’s nat iona lity . . . and w ho is unabl e or

unw il li ng to re tur n to, and is unabl e or unw il li ng to av ail himsel f . . . of the protecti on of, that countr y bec ause of pers ecut ion or a w ell -founded fear of persec uti on on acc ount of rac e, reli g ion , nat ion ali ty , membershi p i n a p arti cul ar so ci al g ro up, o r p oli ti cal opi nio n.” 8 U.S. C. § 1101( a) (4 2) (A ). “ [A] person w ho has been forced to abor t a preg nancy

. . . , or

w ho has been persec uted

. . . re si sta nce to a coerci v e popul ati on cont ro l prog ra m, shal l be deemed to hav e been persec uted on ac countof pol it ic al opi nio n.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 01(a )(42)(B). The burden of proof i s on the appl ic ant i n an asy lum proceed ing to est abl is h tha t he is a refug ee. 8 U.S. C. § 1158( b) (1 )( B) (i ); 8 C .F .R . § 1208.13 (a ). An appl ic ant c an meet his burde n throu gh testimo ny alon e w ithou t having to subm it co rroborat ion, so long as his tes ti mony is credi ble

. 8 C. F. R. § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (a); Mapouya v. Gonz ale s , 487 F .3d 3 96, 4 06 (6 th Ci r. 2007). T he appli cantmustsh ow thathe h as suffered persec uti on i n the pas t or has a w ell -founded fear of future persec uti on s houl d he re tur n to his n a tiv e c ountr y . 8 C. F. R. § 12 08.13( a) ; see a lso Mi khai lev itch v. I.N.S. , 146 F.3d 3 8 4 , 3 8 9 ( 6 th Cir. 1998 ). Ev en i f the appl ic ant e sta bli shes thathe i s a refugee w it hin the meanin g of the s tatut e, he must als o s how

thathe mer it s a fav orabl e ex erci se of dis creti on b y t h e S e cretar y of Homel and Secur ity

or the Attor ney

General

. Kaba v

. Mukas ey, 546 F.3d 741 , 747 (6th Cir. 200 8) (noting the Cou rt’s tw o-step inquiry ). Pursua nt to 8 U.S .C. § 123 1(b)(3)(A), rem oval to a particular cou ntry w ill be wi thh eldDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 “i f the Attor ney

Gene ra l deci des that the ali en’ s li fe or freedom w oul d be threatened i n tha t count ry bec ause of the al ien ’s race, reli g ion , nat ion ali ty , membershi p i n a p arti cul ar so ci al g ro up, o r pol it ic al opi nio n.” I n order to prev ail on his peti ti on, the peti ti oner “mus t s how that the re i s a ‘ clear prob ability’ tha t []he w ould be subject to pe rsecutio n.” FangHuangv. Mu kas ey, 5 2 3 F.3 d 64 0 , 6 5 1 (6t h Cir. 20 0 8 ) (qu o ti n g Koul ji nsk i v. Kei sler , 505 F .3d 5 34, 544 ( 6t h C i r
. 2 0 0 7 ) )

. B e c a u s e t h i s s t a n d a rd i s h i g h e r t h a n t h a t g o v e r n i n g e l i g i b i l it yfor asy lum, an a li en w ho has faile d to est abl is h a w ell -founded fear of pe rs ecut ion for a sy lum pur poses i s n eces sar il y i nel ig ibl e for w it hhol din g of re mov al. Kaba , 546 F .3d a t 751

. An alien may qualif

y for p rotect ion und er t he CAT if h e esta blishes th at “it is more li kel y than not that he .

. . w oul d be tor tured i f re m o ved t o t h e propose d c ountr y of
re mov al. ” 8 C .F .R . § 1208.16 (c )( 2) . Alt houg h an ali en need not show that the torture be “o n ac countof” a protected g ro und as is re q uired for asy lum or

w it hhol din g of re mov al, the ali en’ s b urden of proof i s hig her than asy lum and i nst ead matc hes the b urden as soc iat ed
w it h w it hhol din g of re mov al. See Kaba , 546 F.3d at751. An al ien w il l not b e abl e to meet his burden of proof for

protecti on unde r the C AT if h is cl aim for s uch protecti on has the
s a me fa c t u a l p re d i c a t e a s h i s a s y l u m a n d w i t h h o l d i n g o f re mo v a l c l a i ms a nd he has not met hi s b urden of proof for thos e forms of rel ief. See , e.g. , id. (cit in g Lit i v. Gonz ale s , 411 F.3d 631 , 641 (6th Cir. 2005 )). Peti ti o ner

arg ues g enerall y

thatthe credi bil ity

dete rmi nati on of the IJ as suppl emented by

the Board w as in er ro r. The arg ument t o ov ercome t he c oncl usi ons of the B oard and the I J i s not made par ti cul ar ly forcefull y , and the peti ti oner does not cite to spec ifictes ti mony
. Fur

ther more, he d oes not c it e to spec ific ev ide nce that w as ov er loo ked.Dong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 The cour t ag re es w it h the IJ a n d t h e B oard tha t pet it ion er ’s appl ic ati on does not inc lud e c r u c i a l e l e me n t s o f t h e e v e n t s o n w h i c h h e re l i e s fo r re l i e f. An I J’ s a dv erse credi bil ity findi ng i s rev iew ed unde r the d eferential su bst anti al
ev ide nce sta ndard. Kaba , 546 F.3d at 748. It must be based upon iss ues “t hat g o to the he ar t of th e ap pl i c an t’ s c l ai m. ” Chen , 4 4 7 F.3 d at47 2 (quo ti n g Syl la v. I.N.S. , 388 F .3d 924 , 926 (6th Cir. 2004 )). Here, the IJ det ermin ed that the pet itione r w as not credible in larg e par

t bec ause of the d iscrepan ci es betw een hi s a sy lum appl ic ati on and his oral tes ti mony
. See Amir v. Go n zale s , 467 F.3d 92 1, 92 5 (6th Cir. 200 6) (basing an ad v erse credi bil ity

findi ng on a co mpari son of the petit ion er ’s tes ti mony w it h the st atements made in his a sylu m ap p lic ati on) ; Kaba , 546 F .3d a t 749 -5 0 ( uphol din g an a dv erse credi bil ity findi ng w here the asy lum appl ic ati on did not referenc e the ty pe of tes ti monial as ser

ti ons lat er made)

. As in Am ir

, t he c our

t c oncl udes that a n y re a so n a ble j udg e w oul d notbe compel led to re ach a contrar y co ncl usi on from t he one re ached here by the IJ and affirmed by the Board. Thus, the I J’ s c re dib il ity findi ng w as suppo rt ed by su bst anti al ev ide nce. W e also con clude the IJ an d the Boar d r e a s o n a bly decid ed th at th ere w ere incon sistencie s between th e pe titione r’s asy lum app lication a nd testim ony, a nd w ithin his tes ti mony
. W it h the ex cept ion of the i ncons is tency betw een t he pet it ion er ’sappl ic ati on and testim ony reg arding his age at the time o f the relevant events, these in consiste ncies are subs t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o rt o f t h e a d v e rs e - c re d i b i l i t y d e t e r mi n a t i o n s
. M o re o v e r, the back g ro und i nformati on s ubmitted b y the DH S prov ide s a bas is for o bje cti v e s kept ic is m of the petitio ner’s claims. In t he abs ence of credi ble tes ti mony , t he IJ deter mined that the p eti ti oner had notDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 sat is fied hi s evide n ti a ry burden. To co unter the credi bil ity

q uest ion s rais ed by

the in c o n s is t e n c ie s b e twe e n h is a p p li c a t io n a n d o ra l t e s t im o n y, t h e p e t it io n e r c o u ld h a ve re habi li tated his cl aims w it h c or ro borati v e ev ide nce. See Pi lica v. Ashcro ft , 388 F .3d 9 41, 954 ( 6th C ir . 200 4) ( “B ecaus e [t he pet it ion er ’s ] t est imony pl a usi bly

co uld be v iew ed as inc re dib le, and cer

tai nly co uld be v iew ed as i ncons is tent ori n co herent, a fact finder
re asona bly

co uld find t hat [ the p eti ti oner ’s ] t est imony , abs ent c or ro borati on, w as ins uff ic ien t t o m e e t h is burden of proof.”) Be caus e the IJ ’s adv erse credi bil ity deter minat ion , w hic h w as adopted bythe BIA, i s e nti tl ed to deferen ce, the peti ti oner 's oral tes ti mony

does not suffice, and t he IJ w as therefore en ti tl ed to co nsi dert h e lack of suppo rt ing ev ide nce. Peti ti oner

utt er ly fail ed to rehabi li tate hi s c lai ms w it h c or ro borati on. He did not offer any medi cal document ati on of hi s all eg ed phy si cal inj ur ies or of M in Hue i’ s a bor ti on. N or did he o ffer

ev ide nce of his tradi ti onal mar ri ag e, t he ex is tenc e of hi s gir lfri end, or the imp osition of the 5,0 00 RM B f ine and m and ato ry special program atte nda nce. M oreo v er, he faile d to offer ev en bac kg ro und i nformati on i ndi cat ing thatco erci v e popul ati on c ontrol
me asure s w ere imp lem ent ed in Fuzhou City

. I n l ight of the pe titione r’s q uest iona ble tes ti mony , t he IJ appropr iat ely found hi s fai lure to submi t an y c or ro borati ng ev ide nce to g re atl y under mine his credi bil ity . See Zhaov. Holder , 569 F.3d 238, 249 (6 th C ir . 200 9) (h old ing thatt h e I J p ro per ly focuse d on an i ncredi ble peti ti oner ’s fail ure to prov ide corrobo rating ev iden ce). Beca use the p eti ti oner ’s cl aims for w it hhol din g of

remov al and for protecti on unde r the C AT reston t he s ame factual bas is as h is a sy lum cl aim, the IJ’ s a dv erse credi bil ityDong v. Holde r

No. 08-3469 findi ng renders the peti ti oner ine li g ibl e for asy lum, w it hhol din g of re mov al, and protecti on under the CAT. See Kaba , 546 F .3d a t 751

. III . C oncl usi on F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , we DE NYt h e p e t it io n fo r r e vie w.