2010 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 6-10-2010 

# O gr api sh vi li v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2847

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O gr ap i sh vi l i v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1166. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1166The Honorable L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Pennsylvania, sitting by

designation. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 2847

_____________ M A L K H A Z O G R A P IS H V IL I, NI NO SHU BI TI DZE

P et i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES R es pondent .

_____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s B I A N os . A 98- 906- 541/ 542

_____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February2, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , H A R D IM A N , C ir c u it J u d g e , and P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . *

_____________ OP I NI ON ( Fi l ed: J une 10, 2010) M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge . Pet i t i onerM al khaz O gr api s hvi l i pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal r emoval or derof theTo qualify for a sylum, a petitioner must show that any mistreatment rose to the level of 1 “per secution or a

well-founde d fea

r of persecution” and that such mistreatment was “on account of race, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) . 2 B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi m and hi s w i fe a s y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r e mo v a l , a n d r e l i e f

u n d e rt h e Co n v e n t i o n Ag a i n s tT o r tu r e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE W e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es and ther efor e nee d nots etfor t h t he fa ctual or pr ocedur al hi s t or y . A thi s hear i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) as ked O gr api s hvi l i about per cei ved i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s as y l um appl i cat i on and hi s as y l um i nt ervi ew . T he IJ f o u n d th a t O g ra p ish v ili ’s e x p lan a tio n w a s n o t cr e d ib le, a n d th is c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on w as a fact or i n the I J’ s deci si on t o d enyO grapi shvil i rel i ef. T he IJ al so concl uded thatO gr api s hvi l i fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatanyadver s e tr eatm enthe w as s ubj ect ed t o i n G eor gi a w as “on ac countof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a p a rticu lar so c ial g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n ,” a s re q u ire d u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) to q u a lifyf o r re lief f ro m re m o v a l. O g ra p ish v ili c laim e d th a t h e w a s p e rse c u ted f o r h is 1 w his t l e-bl ow er act i vityrel at ed to corrup t i on i n G eorgi an cu st om s. T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s rul i ng, concl udi ng thatO gr api s hvi l i had fa i l ed t o s how t hatt he thr eat s and att ack he s uffe r ed w er e on ac countof a pr ot ect ed gr ound. A ccor di ng t o t he B I A , O gr api s hvi l i ’ s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed thatthe thr eat s and vi ol ence he fa ced w er e an e ffortt o for ce hi m t o l eave hi s cus t om s j ob. T he B I A concl uded thatthe3

m is tr e a tm e n t w o u ld h a v e s to p p e d if O g ra p is h v ili h a d re s ig n e d . T he B I A al s o uphel d t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. T he B I A ci t ed part i cul ar in c o n sis ten c ies f

ro m th e re c o rd in su p p o rt o f its a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . F irst, O gr api s hvi l i s t at ed i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thataft erthe J anuary2004 i nci dent , he r ece i ved “pr operm edi cal ai d” fr om the nea r es tm edi cal cent erbutthatthe doct ordeni ed h is re q u e s t f

o r a m e d ic a l r e p o rt d o c u m e n tin g th e n a tu re a n d c a u s e o f h is in ju ri e s . H ow ever , he al s o s ubm i t t ed a medi cal r epor tfr om thati nci dentas document aryevi dence wi t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Wh e n a s k e d a b o u tth i s d i s c r e p a n c yi n h i s a s y l u m i n t e r v i e w, O g ra p ish v ili sta ted th a t h e d id n o t re c e iv e th e m e d ica l ca re h e n e e d e d a t th e f irst c lin ic and thathe had t o s eek tr eatm entata s econd c l i ni c. T he medi cal r epor tw as fr om that s econd c l i ni c. H e expl ai ned thathe omi t t ed one of the vi s i t s i n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on b e c a u se h e w a n ted to f

o c u s o n lyo n th e d if

f icu lti e s h e a n d h is w if

e e x p e rie n c e d in G eo rgia. O g rap ishv il i nev er e x p lai n ed w h yh e c o n clud ed that the f ir st do ctor’s in a d e q u a te m e d ica l atte n tio n a n d re f u sa l to p ro v id e a re p o rt d id n o t su p p o rt h is a n d h is w i fe’s asy l um cl ai m s. S ec o n d , the B IA n o ted th at O g rap ishv il i aga in ch an g ed h is st o ryw h en the IJ confr ont ed hi m w i t h t hes e di s cr epanc i es . O gr api s hvi l i then cl ai m ed thatthe omi s s i on re su lted f

ro m in a c c u ra te tra n sla tio n o f th e e v e n ts b yh is w if

e . T h e B IA f

o u n d th is expl anat i on unconvi nci ng beca us e O gr api s hvi l i ’ s w i fe ha d per s onal know l edge of the January20 04 even t s.4

T h is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s o rd e r f

o llo w e d . I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW O u r j u ri sd ict ion o v er a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f a fin al rem o v al ord er b ythe B IA ari ses unde r I N A § 2 42 (a) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) . A bsent cer t ai n specifi c ci rcum st ances, w hich ar e no tpresenthere, w e revi ew the d eci si on of the B IA and no tthat of t he IJ. A b d u la i v. A sh c ro

ft , 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -49 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e m u st acc o rd th e B IA ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs i n a fi nal r emoval or derdeny i ng as y l um s i gni fi cantdefe r ence . W her e the B I A ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydeci s i on i s s uppor t ed by“s ubs t ant i al evi dence , ” w e w i l l not in ter v e n e u n les s th e re c o rd a s a w h o le w o u ld “ c o m p e l[ ]” a n yre a so n a b le f a c t-f in d e r to c o n c lu d e o th e rw is e . X

ie v . A sh c ro

ft , 359 F. 3d 239, 243 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A l t hough “adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons cannotbe bas ed on s pecul at i on orconj ectur e, s uch a fi ndi ng w i l l be af

for ded s ubs t ant i al defe r ence ” w hen the B I A pr ovi des “s peci fi c[, ] cogent re a s o n s ” g ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt th o s e d e te rm in a tio n s . A bdulr ahm an v. A s h c r o ft, 3 3 0 F .3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons m aybe bas ed on “i ncons i s t ents t at ement s , contr adi ct oryevi dence , and i nher ent l yi m pr obabl e t es t i m ony . ” C ao v. A t t ’ y G en. of

U. S. , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON O grapi shvil i argues t hat the B IA ’s adv ers e credi bil i t yfi nd i ng i s erroneou s becau se i tr el i ed on s pecul at i on r athert han evi dence . H e cont ends thathe ful l yexpl ai ned w hatheBe causeOgrapishvili did not challeng e the IJ ’s denial of CAT relief

in his BIA appe al 2 or in his brief to this court, the issue is waived and ne ed not be discusse d further . Se eAb du lAk ba r v . M c Ke lv ie , 239 F.3d 307, 316 n.2 ( 3d Cir. 2001) ( en banc ). 5 deems t o be mi nori ncons i s t enci es i n hi s cas e. H e al s o cl ai m s thathi s al l egat i ons of per s ecut i on i n r es pons e t o hi s w hi s t l e- bl ow eract i vi t ys at i s fythe r equi r ement s of the statu te. A cc o rdin g to O g rap ishv il i, the B IA im p erm issi b lyign o red ev iden ce in the rec o rd i n concl udi ng t hathi s m i s t r eatm entatthe hands of the cus t om s offi ce w her e he w or ked w oul d have s t opped i f he ha d r es i gned. A s y l um i s a form of di s cr et i onaryr el i ef, and a pe t i t i onerbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng he ca nnotr etur n t o hi s hom e countr ybeca us e of, as r el evanther e, “per s ecut i on or a w el l - founded f

earof per s ecut i on on acc ountof . . . m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al group , or poli t i cal op i nion. ” IN A § 1 01 (a) (42)( A ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . P ast per s ecut i on r equi r es a s how i ng t hatt he governm entorfor ces bey ond i t s contr ol th re a te n e d th e a p p lic a n t’ s lif e o r f re e d o m b e c a u s e o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . A bdulr ahm an , 33 0 F . 3d at59 2. T o p rove a w el l -foun ded fear of fu ture persecut i on , the ap pli cant m ust pr es entcr edi bl e t es t i m onyof hi s genui ne s ubj ect i ve fe arof per s ecut i on, and evi dence t hat a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n in h is p o s itio n w o u ld f e a r r e tu rn in g to h is c o u n tr yo f o ri g in . Li e v. A sh c ro ft , 396 F. 3d 530, 536 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . C r edi bl e t es t i m onycan s a tis f yth e a p p lic a n t’ s b u rd e n ; b u t d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e m a ya ls o b e re q u ir e d . G ao v. A sh c ro ft , 2 9 9 F .3 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T o b e e lig ib le f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, 2 t he st and ard i s hi gh er than t he w el l -foun ded fear r equ i red for asy l um . T he ali en m ust6

d e mo n s t r a t e t h a ti ti s “ mo r e l i k e l yt h a n n o t ” th a th e wi l l b e p e r s e c u t e d i n h i s h o me c o u n tr yo n a c c o u n t o f

a p ro te c te d g ro u n d . I

N S v. C ar doz a- Fons eca , 480 U . S. 421, 429, 4 4 8 -50 (19 8 7 ); IN A § 2 4 1 (b)(3 ); 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 3 1 (b)(3 ). A l t hough w e ar e r evi ew i ng t he dec i s i on of the B I A , w e ar e neve r t hel es s tr oubl ed b ythe IJ’s a d v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination that, at l ea st i n p art, co n tr ibu ted to the B IA ’s ruli n g . W e c an n o t spe cu lat e o n the p rec ise w eigh t th at th e IJ p lace d o n O g rap ishv il i’ s t est i m on yt hat the fir stdo ct or he vis i t ed refused to give hi m a reporti n m aking an adv ers e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . T h e IJ r e a so n e d th a t itw a s “ u n lik e lyth a t a p h y sic ian w o u ld r efus e t o pr ovi de a w r i t t en r ecor d of the R es pondent ’ s vi s i t . ” I n the Rem oval

C as e of O g ra p ish v ili , N os . 98- 906- 541/ 542, at4 ( I . & N . D ec. J une 27, 2007) . T hatconcl us i on appea r s t o be bas ed on nothi ng m or e than the I J ’ s ow n exper i ence . H ow ever , w e do not t hi nk i tt he l eas tbi ts us pi ci ous ors urpr i s i ng thata doct ori n a countr ygoverned byan a b u siv e o r c o rru p t re g im e w o u ld b e e x tre m e lyre lu c tan t to d o c u m e n t an yth in g th a t co u ld im p a c t ad v e rse lyo n th a t re g im e o r its a g e n ts. R a th e r, ab se n t ev id e n c e to th e c o n tra ry , it s eems qui t e l i kel yt hats uch a phy s i ci an w oul d r efus e t o documentanytr eatm entthat r es ul t ed fr om abus e att he hands of governm entagent s . T he governm entar gues thatt he I J r eas oned that“a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an l i kel yw oul d notbe atr i s k bym er el ydocument i ng th e tr e a tm e n t p ro v id e d w ith o u t d o c u m e n tin g th e c a u s e .” R e s p o n d e n t’ s B r. a t 1 5 . H ow ever, t hat i s pure speculat i on and i ti s equall yas l i kelythat anyprofessi on al w ho se liv e lih o o d d e p e n d s o n a g o v e rn m e n t li c e n se w o u ld n o t risk o f f e n d in g th e v e ryo f

f icia ls7

h e /s h e m u s t d e p e n d o n to p ra c tic e m e d ic in e . W e ar e ther efor e conc erned thatthe I J w as s o w i l l i ng t o di s cr edi tthatpartof O gr api s hvi l i ’ s t es t i m ony . Si nce thatt es t i m onym ayhave i nfl uence d t he I J ’ s s kept i ci s m of Og r a p i s h v i l i ’ s a t t e mp tt o e x p l a i n i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n h i s a s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n a n d i n t e r v i e w, i ti s di ffi cul tt o t el l w hateff ecti thad on the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. N evert hel es s , w e mustaff i r m the B I A ’ s deni al of r el i ef be caus e, even i f w e ac cept al l of O gr api s hvi l i ’ s t es t i m onyas t rue, w e agr ee thatthe r ecor d does nots uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatt he mi s t r eatm enthe compl ai ns of w as “on ac countof” a gr ound t hatw oul d qual i fy forr el i ef unde rt he as y l um s t atut e. A s the B I A found, O gr api s hvi l i ’ s ow n t es t i m ony d e m o n stra ted th a t th e th re a ts f o c u se d o n g e tti n g h im to re sig n f ro m h is jo b . E v e n a s to t he J anuary2004 i nci dent , he s t at ed “theyt ol d m e s ever al t i m es , w hydon’ ty ou r es i gn a n d w e w ill ju st . . . lea v e y o u a lo n e .” T h u s, it ap p e a rs th a t th e B IA w a s c o rre c t in concl udi ng, bas ed on O gr api s hvi l i ’ s ow n t es t i m ony , thatanym i s t r eatm entw oul d end w i t h hi s r es i gnat i on. M or eover , O gr api s hvi l i ar gues thatthe thr eat s and att ack w er e on acc ountof hi s w hi s t l e- bl ow eract i vi t y , butthatw oul d notent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef unde rthe as y l um s t atut e. C ongr es s s i m pl ydi d noti ncl ude “w hi s t l e- bl ow er s ” w i t hi n t he s cope of 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . A ccor di ngl y , unl es s the s t atus of “w hi s t l e- bl ow er ” ca n s om ehow be equat ed w i t h “r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, or pol i t i cal opi ni on, ” i tdoes notadvanc e O gr api s hvi l i ’ s cl ai m forr el i ef. Fi nal l y , beca us e he n o lo n g e r w o rk s a s a c u sto m s o f f ice r, h is o w n tes tim o n ye sta b lish e s th a t h is a ss a ilan tsOgrapishvili could conce ivably have e stablished his eligibility for relief had he 3 e sta bli sh e d th at th e“pers e c uti on ”hec omp lains of wa s b e c a us eof a po litic a l op ini on

imp ute d to him becauseof the a ctivities of his cousin. Se eAm an fi v. A sh c ro

ft , 328 F.3d 719, 729 &n.4 (3d Cir. 2003). Howe ver, this re cord doe s not contain any testimony

that would support that conclusion, and O grapishvili is not relying on that basis for re lief. 8 w i l l “l eave hi m al one” i f for ced t o r eturn. 3 CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.