FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 14 28 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 98 -2 55 -8 20 NAN LING GUO, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 25 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:NanLin g Gu o i s a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C hi na . He arri ve d i n t he Uni te d

St at es on Ju ly 2, 20 05 , witho uta va li d e nt ry do cum en t. A Not ic e to App ear i ss ue d on Ju ly 16, 2 00 5, ch arg in g h im with re m ov ab il ity . He con ced edrem ov ab il ity an d, th ro ug h c ou ns el , app li edforasylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act (“ INA), an d p ro te ct io n u nd er the Co nv en ti on Aga in stTortur e (“ CAT”). Inhi s ap pl ic at io n, Gu o s tate d t ha t h is m ot he r an d co us inha d b eenarre st edby the Ch in es e g ov ern m en t an d s en te nc edto pri so n be cau se th ey

were Ch ris ti anan d wan te d t o h av e Bi bl es pri nt ed . He feare d t ha t i f returne d t o C hi na , he wo ul d b e jail edforess en ti al ly the same reaso ns th ey were. An Imm ig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) h el d ahe ari ng onGuo ’s th ree- fo ldap pl ic at io n on Ju ne 10 , 20 06 . Guo tes ti fie d a t the he ari ng , andth is is th e g is t o f wha t h e h ad to say in s up po rt o f hi s cl ai m forasylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C atrel ie f. He is a Ch ris ti an , hav in g b eenbapt iz ed(in Ch in a) i n 2 00 2. He b ecame a Ch ris ti anbe cau se “hi s m ot he r to okhi m ” to chur ch . She was v ery act iv e in th e ch ur ch ; h e was les s s o, at te nd in g c hu rch ga th eri ng s i nt erm it te nt ly. The c hu rch ne ed edBib le s, an d h is m ot he r as ke d h im to arrang e fo r th ei r pr in ti ng at h is un cl e’s pr in ti ng pl an t, wh ere Gu o wo rk edas t he da il y bu si ne ss m an ag er. Guo di d m ak e th e n eces sa ry

arrang em en ts , bu t was no t i nv ol ve d i n the actua l p rin ti ng . Ins te ad , he ask edhi s co us in , who work edat t he pl an t, t o h an dl e th e p rin ti ng . 2Afte r 20 0 B ib le s h adbe enpri nt ed , th e p ol ic e cam e to th e p lantinm id -d ay ,

se iz edth e Bi bl es , andarre st edhi s m ot he r an d c ou si n. (Atth e ti m e, Guo an d h is un cl e were a tt en di ng a bu si ne ss m eet in g s ev eral hu nd redm il es away .) The p lant fo rem an , who was i n t he pl an t’s o ffi ce atth e ti m e o f th e arr es t, t el ep ho ne d Gu o t o te ll hi m whatha d h ap pe ne d a ndab ou t the arre st s. He t ol d Gu o t ha t h e was no t arre st ed , app aren tl y

be cau se , acco rd in g t o h im , he kne w no th in g abo utth e Bi bl e pr in ti ng . Guo th encal le d “ Si st er Ch en ” athi s ch ur ch . She co nf irmed th athi s m ot he r an d s is te r ha d b eenarre st ed ; the y ha d a ls o b eenjail ed , pu rp orte dl y un de r te n- y ears ’ se nt en ces . She to ldGuo th atth e p ol ic e were l oo ki ng forhi m . So, t o av oi d a rres t, h e an d h is un cl e, wen t i nt o h id in g. Gu o s tay edat aco us in ’s ho us e in Lin jaian g fo r on e an d aha lf m on th s, the n wen t t o Ho ng Kon g. Th ere, a s na ke he ad arra ng edforhi s trav el to th e Uni te d S ta te s. At the co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng , th e IJfou ndGuo ’s tes ti m on y in te rn al ly in co ns is te nt , in co ns is te ntwith s up po rti ng do cum en ts (in cl ud in g h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n) , andim

pl au si bl e. Exam

pl es of t hi s wer e: Guo tes ti fie d tha t h is m ot he r as ke d h im

to be in vo lv edinpri nt in g t he Bib le s, b utdo cu m en ts inth e reco rd(acc om

pa nyin g alet te r fro m

Guo ’s aun t) s ug ge st edth athi s m ot he r as ke d Guo ’s un cl e, no t Gu o, t o p rin t the Bib le s. Inhi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, Gu o s ai d t ha t bo th pa ren ts were Ch ris ti an . He tes ti fie d, h owe ve r, th aton ly his m ot he r was a 3Ch ris ti an ; h is fathe r was no t. Gu o’s t es ti m on y th atth e p ol ic e were s eek in g t o arre stGuo was i m

pl au si bl e. The p lantfor em anwas Gu o’s co us in ’s supe rv is oran d was pre se ntinth e p lantwhi le th e p rin ti ng was t ak in g p la ce. Yetth e p ol ic e d idno t arre sthi m . Guo was h un dr ed s o f m il es away at t he ti m e, at te nd in g abu si ne ss m eet in g. Why

wou ldth e p ol ic e, who fou ndno cau se to arre stth e fo rem an , want to arre stGuo ? Guo co ul d n otex pl ai n t hi s. As th e IJob se rv ed , “ [i]f any on e wou ld be ch arg edwith re sp on si bi li ty it wo ul d app ear t ha t the supe rv is orwou ldbe so ch arg ed .” Insu m , th e IJfou ndth at “ [i]n t hi s ca se , [Guo ’s] lac k o f cre di bi li ty con cern s cri ti cal an d m at eri al asp ect s o f hi s cl ai m .” Ther e “ is co nc ernas t o wh ethe r [Gu o] was i nv ol ve d i n h is rel ig io n a s h e cl ai m s,” t ha t “ [h ]e has no t t es ti fie d cred ib ly con cern in g h is ownparen ts ’ in vo lv em en t i n t he Ch ris ti anchur ch ,” an d

“ as to whet he r [Gu o] hi m se lf wa s i nv ol ve d wi thth [e] pri nt in g p ro ces s an d wh ethe r he co ul d re as on ab ly be ex pe ct edto be ch arg edwith b ei ng in vo lv edinpri nt in g un reg is te redBib le s.” Th e IJth us co nc lu de d tha t Gu o h adno t m eethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f, de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n i n fu ll , andord eredhi s re m ov al . On J ul y 2, 2 00 8, Gu o app eal edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s (“ BIA”) . The BI A di sm is se d h is ap pe al , su st ai ni ng un de r th e cl ear e rro r st an da rdth e IJ ’s cred ib il ity fin di ng be cau se of t he in co ns is te nc ie s i n Gu o’s

4te st im on y

—wh ic h t he BIA il lu st rat ed —an d t he im

pl au si bi li ty of hi s s to ry . Guo no w see ks rev ie w of the BIA’s de ci si on , con te nd in g t ha t the BIA erre d in affi rm in g t he IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n b ecau se (1) he was n ot pr ov id edanop po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n t he all eg edin co ns is te nc ie s i n h is tes ti m on y an d hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n, an d (2 ) th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was ba se d o n s pe cu la ti on an d was un supp orte d b y co ge ntor s pe ci fic reas on s. 1 Add it io na ll y , Guo pro ffer s v ari ou s ex pl an at io ns to sh ow tha t h is tes ti m on y was no t i m pl au si bl e. Guo co nt en ds th at , bec au se th e BIA’s aff irmance o f th e IJ ’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was inerro r, he m ethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f to es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al on acco un t o f hi s Ch ris ti anbe li efs . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t, u nl es s the BIA ex pr es sl y ad op te d t he IJ’s d eci si on . Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Here, the BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s d eci si on ; ra th er, i t is su edit s o wn o pi ni on up ho ld in g t he IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n. We th eref or e rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . The BIA’s factua l d et erm in at io ns , in cl ud in g c red ib il ity de te rm in at io ns , are Guo ’s bri ef t o t hi s co urt d oe s n otch al le ng e th e BIA’s d en ia l o f CAT 1 rel ie f. W e th eref

or e d eem th e is su e o f CAT rel ie f ab an do ne d. Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). 5rev ie wedun de r th e h ig hl y de fere nt ia l s ub st an ti al ev id en ce t es t, wh ic h re qu ire s u s to vi ew “ th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Adef emi v . Ash cr of

t , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ( en ba nc ). W e “ m us t af firm th e BIA’s de ci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e wil l n oten ga ge ina de no vo rev ie w of the BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s. Ade fe mi , 38 6 F .3dat 1 02 7. Insu m , fin di ng s o f fac t m ad e by the BIA “ m ay

be rev ers edby thi s C ou rt o nl y whenth e rec or d c om

pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f

actth atth e rec or d m ay

supp ort a c on tra ry

co nc lu si on is no t en ou ghto jus ti fy

a rev ers al of the admin is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Id. The BIA m

us t o ffersp eci fic an d c og en t re as on s fo r anadve rs e cre di bi li ty fin di ng . For

gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The ap pl ic an t h as th e b ur de n t o s ho w th atth e BIA’s “ cred ib il ity de ci si onwas n ot supp orte d b y

sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s o r was no t b as edon subs tant ia l ev id en ce.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ A cred ib il ity de te rm in at io n, l ik e an y

fact fin di ng , m ay

no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss th e rec or d c om pe ls it .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ In di cat io ns of r el iabl e te st im on y in cl ud e co ns is te nc y

on di rectex am in at io n, co ns is te nc y with t he writ te n app li cat io n, an d the ab se nc e o f

6em

be ll is hm en ts .” Rui

z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Purs uantto 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), a s amend edby the REAL ID Act § 1 01 (a)( 3) , a cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n m ay

be ba se d o n “ an y

in accu raci es or fal se ho od s i n [t he ap pl ic an t’s] st at em en ts , witho utreg ardto whet he r an in co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se ho odgo es to th e h eartof t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m , oran y ot he r rel ev an t fa ct or .” Ch en v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 33 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (em

ph as is om it te d) . Gener al ly, te nabl e ex pl an at io ns for im pl au si bi li ti es inanap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y wil l n otco m

pe l a r eas on ab le fact fin de r to rev ers e a cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, es pe ci al ly if co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e is ab se nt . Id. ; s ee INA § 20 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ) (p ro vi di ng th at , if the tri er o f fac t d et erm in es th atanasylu m ap pl ic an t i s n otcred ib le , th e tr ie r of factcande te rm in e th atth e ap pl ic an t s ho ul d p ro vi de co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e); INA § 2 41 (b )(3 )(C) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(C) (pr ov id in g t he same for withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im s) . The Att orne y

Gene ral or S ecre tary

of Ho m el an d S ecu rit y

ha s d is cret io n t o gr an t as y lu m

if the ali enm eet s the de fin it io n o f “ refu ge e,” as de fin edby 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A). INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(A); 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(A). A “ refu ge e” in cl ud es an y

pe rs on who is un wil li ng to return t o, an d i s u nabl e o r un wil li ng to av ai l h ers el f of

th e p ro te ct io n o f, th e co un try of h er n at io na li ty whe re s he las t 7habi tu al ly resi de d, b ecau se of p ers ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on

acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or po li ti cal op in io n. INA § 10 1( a)(4 2) (A); 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The asylu m ap pl ic an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g h er s ta tu to ry “ refu ge e” s ta tu s, the reb y es tabl is hi ng asylu m

eli gi bi li ty. Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. “ To es tabl is h as y lu m [el ig ib il ity ] ba se d o n p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve (1) th at sh e was pe rs ecu te d, an d (2 ) th atth e p ers ecu ti on was o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou nd .” Si lv a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 8 F .3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 thCir .20 06 ). “ To es tabl is h e li gi bi li ty for as y lu m ba se d o n awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m

us t p ro ve (1) a subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e fea r of pe rs ecu ti on th atis (2) on acco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . A sho win g o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on crea te s a reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n o f a wel l-f

ound edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on . Se

pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1. To qua li fy

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, anali enm us t s ho w th at , if re tu rn edto he r co un try, the ali en ’s li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or po li ti cal op in io n. INA § 24 1( b) (3 ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 ). If a p et it io ne r is un ab le to m eetth e st an da rdof p ro of forasylu m , he i s g en eral ly precl ud edfro m 8qu al ifyin g fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al . Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 29 2- 93 . W e co nc lu de th atsubs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d et erm in at io n th atGuo ’s tes ti m on y

was n otcred ib le du e to th e in co ns is te nc ie s an d im pl au si bi li ti es inhi s t es ti m on y an d t he do cu m en tary

ev id en ce s ub mit te d. Th e reco rdth us do es no t co m pe l the rev ers al of t he BIA’s co nc lu si on th atGuo was n ot el ig ib le forasylu m

or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al be cau se he di d n otsh ow p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n re li gi on . PETITION DENIED.

9