FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1544 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI A N o. A 95- 665- 523 QIONG QIONG L IU, Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie w of

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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 7, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Qiong-Qiong Liu, a native and citizen of China, petition s this Court to review the f ina l or de r of

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s ( “ BI A ”) w hich af fi rm ed theBe cause we f ind that L iu has not satisfied her burden f or asy lum, we do not consider 1 whether she satisfied the highe r standards for withholding of re moval under the I NA or CAT r elief. See F orgue v. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1288 n. 4 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 im m igr at ionj udge ’ s ( “ IJ ”) de ni al of a sy lum a nd w ith hol din g of

r em ova l un de r the Im m igration and NationalityAc t (“ IN A” ) and relief under Article 3 o f t h e U nited N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T orture a nd Othe r Cr ue l, I nhum an , or

D eg ra din g Treat m en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”)
. I n he r pe tit ionf or r ev ie w , L iu arg ue s th at

the BI A e rr ed

by a dopt ing a nd a ff

irm ing the IJ ’ s deni al of as y lum , w hic h w as ba se d on
ana dve rs e cr ed ibi lity fi ndi ng as to L iu’ s te sti m ony . A ft er c ar ef ul r ev ie w , w e de ny 1 th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. T his Co urt “ re vie w [s ] onl y the [ BI A ’ s] de ci sio n, e xc ep t t o th e ex te nt tha t i t
ex pr es sly a dopt s the IJ ’ s opi nio n. ” A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F
. 3d 1 262, 128 4 ( 11th Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ). “ In s o fa r a s t h e [ BI A] a d o p t s t h e I J ’s re as o n i n g , we wi l l re v i ew t h e I J ’s decision as we ll.” I d. I n this case, the B IAdid no t expressly adopt the IJ’ s entire opi nio n, but the BI A ’ s opini on sugge sts tha t it a cc ep te d m uc h of the I J’ s r ea soni ng. Thus, w e w ill review the BIA ’ s decision and the IJ’ s decision to the extent the BIA ad op te d t he IJ’s re as on in g. W e re vie w the BI A ’ s and I J’ s le ga l de te rm ina tio ns de novo . D -M uhum ed v. U
. S. A tt’ y

G en . , 388 F
. 3d 8 14, 8 17 (1 1thCi r. 200 4)
. F ac tua l de te rm ina tio ns, ho wev er, are rev ie wedun d er t he su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t, wh ic h re qu ire s t ha t we3

“ vie w the r e c o r di n t h e l i g h tm o s tf a v o r ab l e t o t h e a g e n c y ’ s d e c i s i o n a n dd r a w a ll
re as ona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of that de ci sio n. ” A de fe m i v. A shc ro ft , 386 F
. 3d 1 022, 1026 -2 7 ( 11th C ir . 2 00 4) (en ba nc ). W e w ill a ff irm the BI A ’ s de ci sio n “ if

it is supp ort e d by

r e a so na bl e , s ub st antial, and probative evidence on the record considered
a s aw h o l e . ” D- M u h u med , 3 8 8 F
. 3 da t8 1 8 ( qu o t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. P u ta n o t h e r wa y,
we will re verse a f

indin g of fact only when the record c om pels a rever sal; the m ere f a c tt h a tt h e r e c o r dmay s up p o rtac o n t r a ry c o n c l u s i o n i s n o te n o u g h t o ju s t i f y a
re ve rs al
. S ee A de fe m i, 386 F. 3d at 1027
. T he “ subs tanti al e vid en ce ” standard a lso applies to credibility determ ination s and we m ay not subs titute our judgm ent for that of th e BIA wi th res pe ctto su ch fin di ng s. D-Mu hu m ed , 38 8 F .3d at 8 18
. T he r el ev an t f

ac ts are the se . O n Fe br

ua ry 26, 2004 , L iu atte m

pte d to e nte r the U nit ed S ta te s a t L os A nge le s I nte rn at ion al A ir port ( “ L A X ”) , w he re she use d af al se
na m e an d a Po rtu gu es e p as sp or t an d i de n t i f i c a t io n c ard . She was d et ai ne d a t LAX
an d, thr oughaMandarin Ch in ese int er pr et er , w as que sti one d by a n im m igr at ion of fic er. Sh e adm itt ed

to pur ch as ing the f

al se pa ssp ort onthe str ee t i n C hin a, a nd
as se rt ed that sh e w as in fe ar

of r et ur nin g to Ch ina

due to he r m em

be rs hip in the Ca tho lic Chur ch , w hic h she sa id she j oin ed one y ear be fo re he r at te m pte d entr y int o thi s c ountry . S he state d: “ w he n I w as at an ev ent f or the c hur ch , the Ch ine se gove rn m en t c am e out an d ar re ste d pe opl e, but I got aw ay . ” S he sa id tha t the Catho lic4

Church wa s illegal in China. S h e fu rther stated that she had com e to the United St at es “ fo r to ur .” O n S ep te m

be r 15, 200 4, L iu f

ile d he r ap pli ca tio n f

or a sy lum
. In su pport

of
as y lum , she sa id tha t he r en ti re fam ily w as Catho lic a nd h ad

a tte nde d un de rg ro und
re lig iou s se rv ic es c ondu ct ed in the ba se m en t of he r pa re nts ’ hou se . I n he r as y lum application, she also stated that she and her parents had been arr ested in Novem ber
an d D ec em

be r of 200 3 and tha t whe n sh e refus ed to na m e oth er

m em be rs of the church, she w as slapped, pushe d t o t h e ground , and kicked. She eventually wa s
re le as ed w he n he r unc le pa id a fi ne , but she re m ai ne d unde r hous e ar rest. She
ev en tua lly

le ft the c ountry

il le ga ll y , f

or the pur pose of pr ac tic ing he r re lig ion
. S he
ac know le dge d th at , e n r out e to the U nit ed S ta te s, sh e had

tr av el ed thr oughS outh Kore a but had not applied f or asy lum there. He r parents and brother rem ain in China. In addition to her asy lum application an d interview statem ent at L AX , a t her h e a r i n g b e f

o r e t h e I J , L i u p r e s e n t e d a c o p y o f h e r b i rt h c e rt i f

i c a t e , al e t t e r

f r o m a chur ch in Fl or ida sta tin g tha t she w as a m em be r of the pa ri sh, a nd the bir th c er tif ic at e of he r so n, who wa s bo rnin the U nit ed S ta te s in200 5. T he I J a lso c onsi de re d th e U. S. D e part m e nt

o f S t a t e 2 00 4 C hi na

C ountry R e po rto n H um a n R i gh t s P r actices (“ Co untry

Re port” ). L iu a lso te sti fi ed in supp ort of

he r as y lum

appl ic at ion
.5

T he I J de nie d L iu’ s a sy lum appl ic at ion
. F ir st, the IJc onc lud ed that L iu h ad

not
sa tis fied he r burde n to de m onstrate pe rs ec uti on, r athe r than law fu l pr ose cu tio n, or
ar re st, f or a tte ndi ng an unde rg ro und ch ur ch , an d had fa ile d to pr ovi de c or ro bor at ion fo r a n y o f t h e e v en t s s h e d es cr i b ed i n h ert es t i m o n y. Th e I J al s o fo u n dt h at Li u ’s testim ony wa s not credible for the following r easons:(1) Liu testified that her sister
w as a rr es te d w ithhe r pa re nts , but ha d f ai le d to m en tio n he r sis te r’ s ar re st pr ior to the hearing; (2) during her in terview at LAX , she claim ed she wa s a st udent, had never been arre sted, and had com e to the United States “ for tour,” statem en t s t h at were directly contradicted by

her testim ony

before the I J; (3) sh e previously stated either tha t sh e ha d go tt en away w he n othe rs w er e ar

re ste d or that sh e w as a rr es te d a t a chur che ve nt, but

dur ing he r te sti m ony , she sa id s he w as a rr es te d a t sc hool ; and ( 4) Liu w as unable to recognize any of t he sacram ents of t he Catholic Church, other than baptism , and w as unable to elaborate on anything about the Catholic religion, other than say ing sh e w as involv ed in the stud y of the Bible. Fi n al ly , the I J found th at L iu’ s be lie f tha t the Catho lic Chur chis ill eg al in Ch ina w as co m pl et el ye rr one ous sin ce , a cc or din g to the Co untry Re port, th e Ch ine se gov er nm en t r ec ogni ze s f

ive
r e l i g i o n s , i n c l u d i n g C a t h o l i c i s m. On appeal, the BIA affir

m ed the IJ’ s denial of relief. The BIAspecified three
m at er i al d i s cr ep an ci es an d i n co n s i s t en ce s , in s up p o rt o f it s d ec i s i o n t o af fi rm th e I J ’s6

adverse cr edibilit y

finding: (1) L i u ’s t estim ony about her sister’ s arre st, w hich had not pr ev iou sly be en m en tio ne d; (2) dur ing he r L A X sta te m en t, L iu den ie d eve r be ing
ar re ste d, but

te sti fi ed tha t sh e w as a rr es te d f or part ic ipa tin g ina n un de rgro und ch ur ch ; a n d( 3 ) du r i n g h e r L A X s t a t e m e n t , L i us a i dt h a ts h e “ g o ta w a y ” w h e n t he Chinese police arre sted others f or participating in a church event, but then testified tha t sh e ha d be ena rr es te d and d et ai ne d f or nin e da y s and b ea te n. T his pe titionf or
re vie w f oll ow ed
. A n a l i e n w h o a rr i v e s i n o r i s p r e s e n ti n t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s ma y ap p l y f o r a s yl u m. Se e IN A § 208( a) (1 ), 8 U
. S. C. § 11 58( a) (1 ). T he S ec re tary of H om el an d S ec ur ity

or t h e A t t o rn ey Ge n e r a l h as d i s cr et i o n t o g ra n tas ylu m i f t h e a l i en m ee t s t h e I NA’s definition of a “ refugee. ” Se e INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U. S. C. § 1158 (b)(1). A “ refugee” is any person who i s unwilling to return to her hom e country or to avail herself of that
co untry ’s p rote ct ion“ be ca use of pe rs ec uti on o r a w el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on
on a cc ount

of r ac e, r el igi on, na tio na lity , m em be rs hip in a partic ular soc ia l grou p, or polit ical opinio n .” 8 U. S. C. § 110 1(a)( 42)(A)
. T he a sy lum ap pli cant carr ie s the bur de n of pro vin g stat uto ry “ re fu ge e” status . Se e A l N aj

j ar , 257 F
. 3d a t 12 84; 8 C
. F. R. § 20 8. 13( a)
. T he appl ican t sa ti sf ies this bur de n by

sho w ing , w ithspe ci fi c an d c re dible ev ide nc e: ( 1) pa st p er se cu tio n on
acc o unt of a statutorilylisted factor, or (2) a “ we ll-founded fear” of future7

pe rs ecu ti on . Rui z v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 40 F.3 d 1 2 4 7 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A showing of past persecution crea tes a p resum ption of a “ we ll-founded fear ,” subject to r eb utt al by

the g ove rn m en t. S ee S ep ulv ed a v. U
. S. A tt’ y G en . , 401 F
. 3d 1 226, 1231 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. I f she c an not sho w pa st p er se cu tio n, the n ape tit ion er m ust de m onstrate aw el l- fo unde d f ear of futur e pe rs ec uti on tha t i s bo th s ubj ec tiv el y ge nui ne an d ob

j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble
. A l N aj

j ar , 257 F
. 3d a t 12 89. T he sub j ec tiv e
co m pone nt c anbe e sta

bli she d “ by

the appl ic an t’ s c re dib le te sti m ony that he or

she genuin ely fears p ersecution,” while th e o bje ctive com ponent “ can be fulfilled either by establishin g p as t p er s ec u t ion or that he or she has a good rea son to fear future persecution.” I d. (quotation om itted). Liu challenges the IJ’ s adverse cr edibilit y finding
. W e h ave re quired that an IJ m ust m ak e “ cl ean” cr ed ibi lity de te rm ina tio ns. Se e Y an g v. U
. S. A tt’ y G en . , 418 F. 3 d1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at an IJ ’s s t at eme n t t h at ap p l i ca n t ’s testim ony wa s “ extrem ely

inconsis tent and [m ade] absolutelyno sense whatsoever”
wa s not a clean cre dibil ity finding but a com

m ent on the sufficiency

of the evidence). T his m eans th at th e IJ , or BI A , m ust pr ovi de “ spe ci fi c, c oge nt r ea sons ” fo r suc h a fi ndi ng . Fo rgue , 401 F
. 3d a t 12 87. “ In dic at ion s of r el ia ble te sti m ony

inc lud e
co nsi ste nc y

on dir ec t exa m ina tio n, co nsi ste nc y w ith the w ri tte n a ppl ic at ion , a nd the ab s en c e o f e mb e l l i s h m en t s .” Ru i z, 4 4 0 F. 3 dat 1 2 5 5 . If cr ed i b l e, an al i en ’s8

te sti m ony m ay be suf

fi ci en t, w ith out co rr obor at ion , to sus ta in h er bur de n of

pr oof in
es ta bli shi ng h er

e lig ibi lity

f or r el ie f fr om

r em ova l. F or gue , 40 1 F. 3d a t 12 87.

“ Conversely , an adverse credibilit y determ ination alone m ay be sufficient to supp ort the denial of an asy lum

application.” Id. H owever , if an app licant produces evidence oth er than he r te sti m ony , “ it is n ot s uf fi ci en t f or the IJ to r el y

sol el y on an a dve rs e
cr ed i b i l i t y d et er m i n at i o n i n t h o s e i n s t an ce s .” Id . “ Th e w ea k eran ap p l i c a n t ’s testim ony . . . the greater

the need for c orrobor at i v e ev i d en ce. ” Y ang, 418 F.3d at 12 01
. Inthe ins tant c as e, the BI A a nd I J of fe re d sp ec if

ic , c oge nt r ea sons for the ir adve rs e cr ed ibi lit

y f ind ing s. Mo re ove r, sub stanti al ev ide nc e in the r ec or d su ppor ts tho se f ind ing s. L iu p ro vid ed

li ttl e, if a ny , c or ro bor at ive e vid en ce a nd r el ie d a lm ost
ex cl usi ve ly

on h er te sti m ony to suppo rt he r cl ai m fo r as y lum
. Be ca use the BI A a nd IJ found Liu’ s testim ony

not credible and she provided little corroborative evidence, Liu fa iled to m eet her burden for establi shing past persecution or a we ll-founded fear of pe rs ec uti on b as ed

on h er r el igi on. A cc or di ng ly, we m ust de ny the pe tit ionf

or
rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.