File Na me: 11a0212n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 10-3290 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT J I N CHEN, Petitioner,
v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt. ON PETI TI ON FOR REVI EW OF AN ORD E R O F T H E B O A RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, SUH RH EI

NR I CH , a

nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Petitioner-a ppellant J in Che n, a native a nd citizen of China, ar

rived in the United States at L os Ang eles, California on October

31, 2005. Chen did not have e ntry documentation, but told Homeland Security officia ls that she feare d returningto China. Ho me land

Se c ur ity the n inte rv ie we d h e r a

t th e a ir po rt . O n N ov e mbe r 2, an a sylum of fi c e r m e t w ith Chen and conducted a cre dible fea r i nterview with her. Homeland Sec urity issued a notice to a

ppear
asser ting that Chen shou l d b e remove d to China, and an immigr ation judge conducte d a hea ring reg ardingthe notice. Chen c oncede d remova bility to China, but noti fied the immigration judg e of her intent to file a

n application for

asylum. Chen f

iled her application for asylum, withholdi ng of
remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture o n Fe b ruar y 26, 2010. An immigration judge den i ed the application afte r a he aring , finding that Chen lacke d cre dibilit y andNo. 10-3290

Chen v. Holde r Pag e 2 also that her petition lac ked merit. The Boa rd of I mmigration Appe als subs eq u en t l y d i smissed Che n’ s a pp e a l. I n do ing so , the B oa rd a dd re sse d on ly the imm ig ra

tio n ju dg e ’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty deter mination and held that it was not clea rly err oneous. Now, C hen petiti ons this C ourt to review the B oard’ s decision. We DENY the petition. I. Whe n th e B oa

rd do e s n ot a do pt t

he de c isi on of the imm ig ratio n ju dg e and ins te a d is su e s it s own opinion, we re view the B oard’ s o p i n i o n as the fina l determination of the a g ency . Morgan v. Keisler , 5 07 F .3 d 10 53 , 10 57 (6 th Cir
. 20 07 ). He re , the B oa rd iss ue d it s o wn

op ini on ba se d o n o nly the issue of Chen’ s cre dibilit y . The B oard dismissed the appe al, hol d i n g that the immigration ju d g e ’ s d e te rmination as to Chen’s cr edibility was not cle arly

err oneous bec ause of

four r easons c ited by the immigration judge. We reviewa fa ctual dete rmination by t h e B oard, suc h as a c redibility deter mination, for substantial evidence
. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). “Th[is] finding [] of fa ct [i s] conclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
. T h i s i s a defe rential standa rd of r eview, a

nd we may

not reve rse the Boa rd’s de cision merely

beca use we would have r eac hed a dif fer ent conc lusion. Kaba v. Mukase y , 546 F.3d 741, 747 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Th e imm ig ratio n ju dg e mus t make he r c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n “ [c]o ns ide ri ngthe tot a lity of the c ircumstance s. ” 8 U. S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). F urthermor e, the “ conclusion must be supported by

specific rea sons . ” Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749. Be cause Chen filed her application af

ter May 10, 2 0 0 5 , th e RE A LI D A c t g o v e r n s an d a ll o w s th e immi g r a ti o nju d g e to c o nsiderNo. 10-3290

Chen v. Holde r Pag e 3

F a lun G o n g is an A sia n “sp iritua l ex e rc ise m o v e m e n t” tha t ga ine d p o p u la rity, es p e c ia lly in th e P e o p le ’s

1 R ep ub l i c o f

C hi na, i n t he earl y 19 9 0 s. T he C hi nese governm ent o ut l awed Falun G o ng and has p uni shed t ho se who pr a c t i c e i t w i t h v i ol e n t a t t a c k s , i mp r i s on me n t , a n d r e - e du c a t i on pr og r a ms . Tho ma s L u m, Con g . Re s e ar ch Ser v. , RL 3 3 4 3 7 , C hi na and Falun G o n g s um m ary , 1-2 (20 0 6 ) avai l abl e at http :// fp c .sta te .go v /d o c u m e n ts/o rg a n iz a tio n /6 7 8 2 0 .p d f. i n co n s i s t en ci es th atp ert ai nt o an y “r el ev an tfa ct o r. ” 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( B) (i i i ). T h i s i s a c h an ge in the law; inconsistencies f orm erly had to “be based upon issues that g o to the hear t of the
a p p li c an t’ s c la im ” to s u

p p o rt an a dv e r s e c r e d ib il it y f in d ing
. Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749. We have
reve rsed credibility deter

minations befor e whe n they wer e base d on “spec ulation,” “c onjecture ,” or “inconsistencie s unsupported in the re cord.” Mapouya v . Gonz a les , 487 F.3d 396, 407 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (c itations omi tted). Her e, howe ver, the immigration judge ba sed her deter mination upon four
rea sons clear ly

contained in the r ecor d. The fir st reason f

or the im migr ation judge ’s adverse credibility deter mination is t hat Chen omitted a key

fac t from her

airport a nd cre dible fea

r interview s that she d i d n ot present until her
a sylum he ari ng . Spe c if

ic a lly , Che n c la ime d a t the he ari ng that sh e wa s p e rs e c ute d in Chi na be c a us e she pra ctices F alun Gong
. At the hea ring , she explained that she never mentioned this fa ct bef ore 1 beca use her smugg ler wa

rned he r to neve r tell anyone about her Fa lun G ong beliefs or she would be returne d to China and perse cuted e ven more sever ely
. This omission is extremely damag ing to Chen at first g lance beca use an a sylum “application shou l d co n t ai n at least some indication of the ty pe of a ssertions that will be made in support of a claim,” Kaba , 546 F.3d at 749-50, but here , Chen omitted the entire ba sis for her fea r of pe rsec ution.

“ [A] c omp le te la c k o f s pecifi city in .
. . a pp lic a tio ns jus tif

ie s th e imm ig ratio n ju dg e ’s sk e pti c ism about t h e v al i d i t y o f those cla ims . . . .” Id. a t 75 0. Ho we ve r, the omi ssi on is m iti g a te d at le a stNo. 10-3290

Chen v. Holde r Pag e 4 somewhat by

Chen’s explanation that she fe are d perse cution if she re veale d her be liefs. Cf. Munoz-Monsalve v. M

ukasey , 5 51 F .3 d 1 , 8 (1 st C ir . 2 00 8) (“ [A]n [i mmi g ra tio n ju dg e ] is justified—at least in the abse nce of a compe lling explanation

— i n d o u b t ing the petitioner’s
vera city .”). Second, Chen testified inconsistently at her hear ing a s to how fre quently she distributed Fa lun G ong fliers in he r hometown. On direc t e x amination, she testified that she pa ssed out fliers on a daily basis. Howeve r, on cr oss-examination, she testified that she only distributed fliers two or three times a month. Th is do e s no t se e m to us a g ro ss e rr or , but we have he ld be fo re that ne g a tiv e cr e dib ili ty deter minations may be supported by inconsistencies in testimony reg ardingissues of fre quency and numerosity
. See Berri v. Go n z a l es , 468 F.3d 390, 395 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (holding that immi g ration jud g e ’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingwa s p art ly

su pp or te d b e c a us e pe tit ion e r varied g re a tly in h is testimony , first stating that Hezbollah questioned him only a couple of times befor e incr easingthat fig ure to ten times a da

y for multiple day s). Third and fourth, the Boa rd agr eed with the i mmigration judge that Chen failed to produc e any corr oborative e vidence . Chen submitted two affidavits to corr oborate her c laims, one from he r fathe r and one from her

friend. Howeve r, t he immigr ation judge discredited the letters, desc ribing them as having “virtually identical .
. . tone, phrases, and orga nization,” and took issue with them beca use the fr iend’s letter

ref err ed to Che n as the friend’ s daug hter. Additionally , the immigration judge faulted Chen f

or fa iling to supply any

rec ord of a

police re port from a

n instance in whic h Chen claims her boss attacked he r and she called the police.No. 10-3290

Chen v. Holde r Pag e 5 In th e Sixth C ir c uit , a n a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n ma

y be ba se d u

po n a fa ilure to pr od uc e c or ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e “ wh e re it is re a so na ble to e xpe c t c or

ro bo ratin g e vid e nc e fo r c e rt a in alleg ed fac ts pe rtaining to the specific s of an a pplicant’s cla im.” Do ro sh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 379, 3 8 2 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 4 ). R ega rd i n g th e l et t er s fr o mC h en ’s f a t h e r a n dfr i en d , th e i m m i gra t i o nj u d ge appar ently

doubted their authe nticity and alluded that they

may have be en fa

bricated bec ause the y
wer e so similar. The immigration judg e fur ther doubted the ir authenticity beca use the fr iend’s letter oddly ref ere nced Che n as the friend’s da ug hter, but on appe al, Chen cla ims that the error resulted fr om f a ult y tr ans latio n. We a

re no t c on vin c e d th at th e a ff ida vit s la c k a

uth e nti c ity

sim ply be c a us e they are virtually

identical, or even if they wer e prepare d by someone other than t he si g natories. Cf. Iglesias v. Muk

asey , 540 F.3d 528, 532 (7th Cir. 2008) (e x plaining that form af fidavits wer e not clea

r and convinc ing be cause they did not contain very

much information, but not beca use t hey wer e for m aff idavits). The odd refe renc e to Chen as t he fr iend’s daughter see ms more troubling , but this m ay have me rely

been a translation error as Chen now conte nds. Th e a bs e nc e of Che n’ s p oli c e re po rt

is
mor e pr ob le matic e sp e c ia lly be c a us e sh e did

no t c la im that it

wa s unava ila

ble or that sh e tr ie d to obtain a copy
. Cf. Do ro sh , 398 F.3d at 383 (“It was reasona ble for the [Board] to expect Petiti oner to have retained these [ corr oborative] letters, especially since she offer ed no spec ial circ umstances to expl ain their a

bsence .”). We have c erta inly

revie wed c redibil i ty

deter minations where the immigration judge’ s deter mination was much more strong ly supported than the one here
. We are not convinced that any one of the se rea sons w ould be sufficie nt to support the immigration judg e’s deter mination by

itself. Howeve r, the rea sons must be viewed collectively
. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii). Fur thermore , ourNo. 10-3290

Chen v. Holde r Pag e 6 task here is to decide whether substantial evidence is lacking enoug h so as to compe l any re a so na ble adjudicator to make a contra ry conclusion. Wit h that high sta ndard in mind, we hold that substantial evidenc e supported the immigration judge’ s adver se cr edibil i ty deter mination. The immigra

tion judge listed four spec ific re asons for he r dete rmination that are supported in the re cord. She did not rely upon speculation, co n

j ec t u re, or inconsistencies that we re not supporte d in the rec ord. Mapouya , 4 87 F .3 d at 40 7. Vi e wi ngthe re a so ns c oll e c tiv e ly , w e c ann ot s a y that any re a so na ble adjudicator

would have be en compe lled to conclude dif fer ently
. Cf., e.g. , El-Moussa v. Holder , 569 F.3d 250, 255 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (“Althoug h not ever y inconsistency

identified by

the [im migr ation judge ] i s bey ond debate , substantial evidence supports the [im migr ation judge ]’s findings.”)
. II. For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Chen’s petition for re view.