FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 4, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12429 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 78- 863- 166 B I L I A N L I U , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 4, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

B i L ia n L iu , an a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C h in a . S h e e n te r e d th e U n ite d S ta te s in M a y 2002 w i thoutva l i d doc um e nt a t i on. I n a ns w e r i ng que s t i ons putt o he rby the i m m i grat i on offi ci al s, she s t at ed thatshe l ef tC hi na because she had been pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof her pol i t i ca l op i ni on and m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c ia l g r o u p . I n F e brua ry 2003, L i u appl i e d f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( I N A ) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe U . N . C onve nt i on A gai nstT orture ( C A T ). In her app l i ca t i on , she a m pl i fi ed the det ai l s of the pe r s e c ut i on c l a i m s he ha d r e ve a l e d t o the i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s on e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n M a y 2002. S he pr ovi de d the de t a i l s of he ra l l e ge d pe r s e c ut i on f or athi r d t i m e a tthe he a r i ng on he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on be f or e a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( I J ) . A ttha the a r i ng, L i u a dm i tt e d tha tne i the rs he norhe rpa r e nt s be l onge d t o a ny gr oup oror ga ni z a t i on i n C hi na , butc l a i m e d tha ts he ha d be e n pe r s e c ut e d by the go vernm ent . S he expl ai ned the pers ec ut i on thi s w ay . A m an, she l at erl earned w as ap o lic e o f

f ic e r , e n te r e d h e rp a r e n ts ’ r e s tau r a n t a s s h e w a s ab o u t to c lo s e it a n d s a id he w ant ed t o m arryher. S he re fuse d, so he raped h er . S he ca l l ed her pare nt s, then the pol i c e . T he pol i c e t ook he rs t a t e m e nt , butdi d notpur s ue the m a tt e r . W he n s he i nqui r e d, the pol i c e t ol d he rtha tthe m a n w a s apol i c e of f i c e ra nd a c c us e d he rof fi l i n g a fal se rep o rt . S h e t est i fi ed th atth e m an freq u en t l y cam e t o h er p aren t s’The B IA re jected the IJ ’s findi ng that Liu’s application for asylum was frivolous. The IJ ’s 1 finding , a nd theB IA’ s re

je c tio n th ere of

, isir re leva nt in this a

pp e al. 3 re st aura ntthere af

t er ; he w ou l d t ou ch her and t el l everyone pres entthathe had r ap e d h e r . A t th e c lo s e o f

h e rte s tim o n y , th e I J f

o u n d L iu ’s s ta te m e n t la c k in g in cred i b i l i ty. In h i s o ral d i sp o si t i v e o p i n i o n d en yi n g L i u ’ s ap p l i cat i o n i n fu l l , th e IJ c ite d s e v e r a l in c o n s is te n c ie s b e tw e e n L iu ’s h e a r in g te s tim o n y a n d th e s ta te m e n ts s h e m a d e in h e ra s y lu m ap p lic a tio n a n d to th e im m ig r a tio n o f f ic ia ls o n e n try in to the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he n, putt i ng a s i de the i s s ue of L i u’ s c r e di bi l i ty , the I J f ound thatthe ac t i on s t aken agai nsther w er e notbase d o n h erra ce , re l i gi on , se x, po l i t i ca l opi ni on orm e m be r s hi p i n as oc i a l gr oup, ortha tthe l oc a l C hi ne s e gove rnm e nt a s s e n t e d t o s u c h a c t i o n s . Th e I J th e r e f o r e d e n i e d h e rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, a n d C A T r e lie f . L iu ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A ) . T h e B I A a f

f irm e d , a d o p tin g th e I J ’s d e c is io n a s its o w n . L iu n o w p e titio n s th is 1 c o u rtf o rr e v i e w. C o n tr a ry to th e I J ’s f

in d in g , L iu c o n te n d s th a t h e rte s tim o n y w a s h o n e s t, truthf ul , c r e di bl e a nd c ons i s t e nt . S he a r gue s tha tthe I J di d notc ons i de rthe c o n d itio n s in C h in aa n d th e m a n n e rin w h ic h s h e w ill b e p u n is h e d if f o r c e d to4

retu rn . S h e cl ai m s th atsh e i s en t i t l ed t o rel i ef u n d er th e C A T b ecau se th e C h i n ese g o v ern m en ttreat s retu rn ees h arsh l y. F i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta r e r e v i e we d u n d e rth e “ s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , ” a n d we w i l l a f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on “ i f i ti s s upport e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd prob at i ve evi dence on the re cord consi dere d as aw ho l e. ” F orgu e v. U . S . A tt orney G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . L i ke w i s e , de t e rm i na t i ons of c r e di bi l i ty a r e a l s o r e vi e w e d unde rthe s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t e s t . I d. U nde rthe h ig h ly d e f

e r e n tia l s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t, w e “c o n s id e ro n ly w h e th e rth e r e is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e f

o rth e f in d in g s m a d e b y th e B I A , n o t w h e th e rth e r e is subst ant i al evi dence for s om e other f i nd i ng thatcoul d h ave been . . . m ade. ” A de f e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3d 1022, 1029 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W e “ c a nnotf i nd, or c ons i de r , f

a c t s notr a i s e d i n the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve f orum , norc a n w e r e w e i gh the evi dence fr om sc ra t ch. ” I d. at10 27 . In ci rc um st ance s, such as thi s, w here the B IA a dopt s the de c i s i on of

the I J , w e r e vi e w the de c i s i on of the I Jt o the e xt e nttha tthe B I A e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the de c i s i on of the I J . A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S in c e th e B o a r d a d o p te d th e d e c is io n b y th e I J to d e n y L iu the r e l i e f s he r e que s t e d, w e r e vi e w the I J ’ s a na l y s i s a s i f i tw e r e the B oa r d’ s a nd d e te rm in e w h e th e rit is s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S e e id . T h e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f is o n a n a lie n to e s tab lis h th a t s h e is e n title d to a s y lu m . I d. ( c i t i ng 8 C . F . R § 208. 13( a ) ( 2001) ) . A n a l i e n i s s t a tut or i l y e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um5

if s h e is ar e f

u g e e , ate rm d e f

in e d a s a n in d iv id u a l u n w illin g to r e tu rn to , a n d is un abl e or unw i l l i ng t o avai l hers el f of the prot ec t i on of, the coun tryof her na t i ona l i ty be c aus e of

pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount of ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul arsoci al grou p, or po l i t i ca l o p i n i o n . I d . ( c i t i n g I NA § 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) , 8 U. S . C . § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ; I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ) . W h e r e th e ap p lic a n t d o e s n o t s u p p ly s upport i ng doc um e nt a t i on, an e xpl i c i ta dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on i s a l one suff i ci entt o sup po rtthe deni al of an as yl um appl i ca t i on . F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at 1 2 8 7 ; Y a n g v . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he IJm ade a n adv er se cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on and speci fi ed se vera l i nc i de nc e s i n w hi c h L i u’ s t e s t i m ony c ontr a di c t e d he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd s t a t e m e nt s s he m a de t o i m m i gr a t i on of f i c i a l s upon e ntry . L i u di d notpr ovi de a ny s upport i ng doc um e nt a t i on t o bol s t e rhe rc a s e . O n thi s a l one the I J c oul d ha ve d e n ie d r e lie f

, b u t h e m a d e th e f

u rth e rf in d in g th a t e v e n if

L iu w a s tru th f

u l, s h e d id n o t p r o v id e a n y p r o o f

th a t s h e f

it th e d e f in itio n o f ar e f u g e e . T h e r e c o r d s u p p o rts both f i ndi ngs by the I J . T hus , w e c onc l ude tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the IJ ’ s c on cl usi on thatL i u d i d n otprov i de cr edi bl e t es t i m on y thatprov es she w as pers ec ut ed on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n a n d a f f irm th e d e c is io n b y th e I J a n d th e B I A to d e n y h e rap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m .6

A n al i en i s onl y e l i gi bl e f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al t o a coun tryi f s he ca n de m ons tr a t e tha ti ti s “ m or e l i ke l y tha n not ” s he w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d ort ortur e d upon b ei n g retu rn ed t o h er co u n try, o n acco u n to f h er race, rel i g i o n , n at i o n al i ty, m em b ersh i p i n a p art i cu l ar so ci al g ro u p , o r p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n . A l i m v . G o n zal es, 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e s ta n d a r d f o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l is “m o r e s tr in g e n t” th a n th e s ta n d a r d f o ra s y lu m . S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tto rn e y G e n ., 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 32 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). S i nce L i u fai l ed t o p rove thatshe i s e nt i t l ed t o a s y l um , s he c oul d notha ve pr ove n tha ts he m e tthe m or e s tr i nge nts t a nda r d f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. L iu a ls o a lle g e s th a t s h e is e n title d to p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C A T . I n o r d e rto in v o k e th e p r o te c tio n o f th e C A T , “a n ap p lic a n t m u s t s h o w th a t it is m o r e lik e ly than n otthatshe w i l l be t ortured i n h erho m e c ou ntryatthe hand s of her g o v e rn me n to rth a th e rg o v e rn me n tw i l l a c q u i e s c e i n th e t o rtu r e . ” Sa n c h e z v . U . S. A tt orne y G e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 438 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W he n pr e s e nt e d w i th a pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the de ni a l of

C A T r e l i e f

, w e uphol d the f

a c tua l de t e rm i na t i on i f i ti s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence i n the re cord. A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at 12 83 -84. T he IJfoun d thateven i f L i u’ s a ss aul t erw as a pol i ce offi ce r, he ac t ed n o t o n b e h a lf

o f th e g o v e rn m e n t o ru n d e rth e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls . T hi s vi ew i s buttre ss ed by subst ant i al evi dence i nd i ca t i ng thatthe att ac k w as p e r s o n a lly m o tiv a te d .7

In her bri ef

t o u s, L i u argues thatthe IJand B IA di d n otconsi der the coun try c ondi t i ons i n C hi nar e ga r di ng the tr e a tm e ntof r e turne d r e f

uge e s . W e m a y not c ons i de rthi s i s s ue , how e ve r , s i nc e i tw a s notpr e s e nt e d t o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve a ge nc y . 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) . S i nc e L i u di d notpr e s e ntar e portof the c ountry c ondi t i ons t o the I J orthe B I A a nd the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on t o de ny p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e C AT i s s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d , we a f f irm th e B I A . P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.