FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 2 9, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 45 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 94 -8 82 -5 70 COROMOTO CATHERINE ANEZ ARAUJO, GABRIEL JOS UE CUETO SANCHEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne rs , vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 rch 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Co ro m ot o C athe rin e Ane z Arau jo an d h er s on , Gabr ie l J os ue Cu et o San ch ez, n at iv es an d c it iz en s o f Ven ezu el a, pe ti ti on forrev ie w of t he de ni al of Arau jo’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 . The Bo ardof Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s ag reedwith t he fin di ng s o f th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e th at Arau jo’s te st im on y

ha d n otbe encred ib le an d s he ha d fa il edto pre se ntev id en ce t o
co rro bo rat e h er t es ti m on y . W e d en y th e p et it io n. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atwe lac k ju ris di ct io n t o re vi ew Arau jo’s p et it io n be cau se sh e d idno t “ m ean in gf ul ly chal le ng e” t he fin di ng th atsh e h adfai le d t o pr es en t ev id en ce t o c orro bo rat e h er t es ti m on y , bu t we d is ag ree. Arau jo arg ue d be fo re the Bo ardth athe r te st im on y ha d b een co ns is te ntan d c red ib le , th ere was no
ne edfor co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, an d s he ha d p res en te d s uf fic ie ntco rro bo rat in g
ev id en ce. Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g t ha t Araujo was n otcred ib le , and th e imm ig rat io n ju dg e p ro vi de d s pe ci fic an d c og en t re as on s t o s up po rt t ha t fin di ng . Moh amm edv. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 47 F.3d13 40 , 13 44 –4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ). To o bt ai n s ta tu s as a refu ge e, anali enm us t p ro vi de “ te st im on y

[th at ] is cred ib le , is pe rs ua si ve , andrefe rs to sp eci fic fact s,” 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ), bu t Araujo ’s tes ti m on y

was i nc on si st en t an d i m

pl au si bl e. Arau

jo g av e, fo r
2ex am

pl e, th ree d iff

eren t ac co un ts ab ou t h ow s he ha d l earn edwho de stro y edth e win do ws i n h er l iv in g ro om : s he to ldth e Ven ezu el anpo li ce tha t s he ha d s een

“ m il it ary m en(2 m enwith m il it ary un ifo rm s) wit h g un s” ; s he st at edin he r ap pl ic at io n t ha t s he ha d b een“ to ldby som e wit ne ss es th attwo m enin m il it ary
un ifo rm s h adfir edsev eral sh ot s ag ai ns t [h er] wind ows fro m th e street ”; an d s he te st ifi edth ata “ ne ig hb or[ha d] to ld[he r] the fol lo win g d ay [th at ] he ha d s een . . . two m enrid e ina va n, an d o ne of t he m fir edsh ot s.” Araujo ’s acco un ts als o di ffer edfro m

he r br ot he r’s te st im on y

th at , a m on th aft er the in ci de nt , Arau jo

“ di dn ’t kn ow” who was t he va nd al . Whe n a sk edto ex pl ai n t he se in co ns is te nc ie s, Arau jo res po nd edth atth e p ol ic e rep ort co nt ai ne d a“ m is tra ns la ti on .” Alt ho ug h Arau jo arg ue s tha t t he in co ns is te nc ie s i n h er t es ti m on y are “ no t . . . m at eri al ,” th ey di d n otha ve to rel at e “ to th e h eartof [ he r] alle ga ti on s o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on or f ear of futur e p ers ecu ti on ,” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), t o s up po rt the adve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n. Se e Xiav. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 6 08 F.3d12 33 , 12 39 –4 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Araujo als o a rg ue s t ha t t he Bo arderro ne ou sl y di sm is se d h er ap pe al ba se d o n a“pe r se rul e th at[sh e] fail [ed ] to ad dr es s co rro bo rat io n,” bu t t he Bo ard“ ag reedwith [t he ] de te rm in at io n” of t he imm ig rat io n ju dg e th atArau jo

“ was no t cr ed ib le owi ng to th e la ckof c orro bo rat io n o f he r cl ai m s an d a n in co ns is te nc y

inhe r subm it te d e vi de nc e.”
3Arau

jo’s te st im on y

was wea k, wh ic h c reat eda “ gr eat er . . . nee d fo r
co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce,” Yan g v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 18 F.3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ), th atArau

jo fai le d t o p ro vi de . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ). Altho ug h Arau jo’s p aren ts all eg ed ly w it ne ss edth e d es tru ct io n o f he r win do ws, an d h er fat he r al le ge dl y

rep el le d fo urwom enwho att ack edArau jo, an d h er fa th er al le ge dl y an swe reda te le ph on e cal l i n wh ic h am em be r of th e Ven ezu el anm il it ary th reat en edhe r, Arau

jo fai le d t o c al l ei th er o f he r pa ren ts to tes ti fy . Araujo co ul d ha ve pro vi de d c orro bo rat in g t es ti m on y fro m he r pa ren ts be cau se , in he r wor ds , her pa ren ts “ sp en [t] m or e ti m e h ere” in th e Uni te d S ta te s tha n i n Ven ezu el a. Arau jo li ke wis e co ul d h av e cal le d h er s on , who acco m pa ni edhe r to th e rem ov al he ari ng , to tes ti fy ab ou t t he all eg edatt em

pt edki dn ap pi ng of h im

at h is sch oo l.

“ [A]dm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s o f factare co nc lu si ve un le ss an y reas on ab le ad jud ic at orwou ldbe co m

pe ll edto co nc lu de to th e co ntrary ,” 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(4 )(B) , andwe m ay no t re ve rs e th os e fi nd in gs un le ss “ ‘the reco rdco m pe ls
a rev ers al ,” Mo ha m

m ed , 54 7 F .3dat 1 34 5 (q uo ti ng Adef em i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 )). See Xi a, 60 8 F .3dat 1 23 9. Be cau se Arau jo’s te st im on y was n otcred ib le an d s he fai le d t o p ro vi de an y ev id en ce tha t
co rro bo rat edhe r al le ga ti on s o f pe rs ecu ti on , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fin di ng s t ha t Araujo fai le d t o p ro ve th atsh e su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on at t he ha nd s
4of

, or h ada well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on by, th e Ven ezu el an go ve rn m en t. Arau

jo “ fai le d t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m , [an d] li ke wis e fai le d t o e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al .” Sh ka m bi v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 58 4 F .3d10 41 , 10 52 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Arau jo’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w is DENIE D
.

5