United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued April 21, 2009

Decided May 8, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2888

JAMILEH FAHMI DARWICH, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Nos. A096‐493‐530

A096‐493‐531

A096‐498‐532

ORDER

Jamileh FahmiDarwich, anAssyrianChristian, came toAmerica with hertwo children after

Syrian officials allegedly confiscated her business and home, detained herfor oneday, and beat

her.  She attributes these events to complaints she purportedly made to authorities about the

illegal activities of her business partner, who, if he exists at all, may have ties to the Syrian

government.    Darwich sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture for herself and the children.  An IJ disbelieved her story and

denied relief, and the BIA affirmed.  We deny the petition for review.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2888 Page 2

Background

Darwich and the children entered the United States in February 2002 on visitor’s visas.  At

the time the children were sixteen and eleven.  Darwich’s husband had come to America about

eighteen months earlier; at the time they were purportedly separated, but they have since

reconciled.  Her husband received a labor certification and applied for adjustment of status, but

his application was eventually denied.    Darwich’s visa expired in August 2002, but the

Department of Homeland Security did not charge her with removability until April 2003, one

month after she applied for the relief sought here.

In her asylum application Darwich claimed that she feared persecution in Syria

because she is Christian, and because she had exposed her business partner’s corruption.

She explained that when she lived in Syria she owned and operated a plastics factory.

Though initially the business did well, in June 2000 she began experiencing

financial problems and chose to take on a partner, Ali Deebeh.  She chose Deebeh because

he was an Alawite and had connections with government officials.    Alawites are a

shi’ite Muslim sect who believe in the deification of Ali; though initially persecuted, Alawites

are now the politically dominant sect in Syria.  See Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Alwite, available

at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12399/Alawite (last visited Apr. 5, 2009).  

According to Darwich, the partnership soured when she discovered that Deebeh had used

her factory to store and process heroin.  She confronted him and he responded by threatening

her.  Darwich went to the local authorities in December 2001 and filed a complaint against

Deebeh with a high‐ranking member oftheBa’ath party.  She claims that security forces reacted

by detaining and interrogating her overnight on December 24, 2001.  After she was released,

her factory was immediately confiscated for “economic crimes,” and soon after her home was

also confiscated.  Deebeh threatened her with death if she continued trying to expose him;

homeless and jobless she fled to America a month later.  The record shows, however, that

Darwich had applied for her visa months before her purported troubles with Deebeh began.

In June 2006, Darwich described the nature of her asylum claim at a removal hearing before

an IJ.  Generally, she claimed that Deebeh and the Syrian government persecuted her when she

complained about Deebeh’s corruption.  She testified that Deebeh worked forthe government

and held a high rank in the Syrian military, although she did not know his exact rank.  It was

Deebeh, she said, who confiscated herfactory and home on the authority of an orderissued by

a Syrian court.  She added, though, that she had kept her husband in the dark about her

problems with Deebeh because she feared that her husband would be killed or jailed if he

became involved.    The IJ continued the hearing so that Darwich could obtain evidence

corroborating her claims, specifically documents pertaining to the confiscation of her property.
No. 08‐2888 Page 3

Before the hearing resumed, Darwich submitted many documents into evidence including

several articles about isolated incidents of violence against Christians in Syria.    She also

submitted two reports from Amnesty International:  in one, Amnesty reports that scores of

people have been arrested in Syria because of their political beliefs; in the other, Amnesty

details the risks ofreturning to Syria after having sought asylum, explaining that “the very fact

of leaving the country to seek asylum abroad is imputed to be a manifestation of opposition to

the Syrian Government.”    In addition to these articles, Darwich submitted a baptismal

certificate verifying her birth date, her chamber‐of‐industry card describing her as a plastics

worker, a registry of Syrians living abroad listing herself and herfamily, and a statement from

a lawyer in Damascus, dated in December 2006, explaining that because of the “sensitivity of

thematters” he could not assistDarwich with an “economic” accusation “brought againsther.”

But despite the IJ’s basis for granting the continuance, she did not submit any document

corroborating her story or the purported seizures of her home and factory.

The government supplemented the record with the 2006 International Religious Freedom

Report, a CIAWorld Factbook report on Syria, and the 2005 CountryReports on HumanRights

Practices in Syria.    The Religious Freedom Report describes the relationship among the

religious groups in Syria as “generally amicable” with isolated incidents of tension.  The report

acknowledges that “status as an Alawite Muslim can be a factor in obtaining employment”

with the government.  At the same time, however, the report notes that in recent times most

religiously motivated violence has been directed against Muslims, not Christians.  The country

report verifies that corruption among security forces is a seriousproblem but explains thatmost

arrests and detentions involve individuals suspected of ties to radical Islam.

When the hearing resumed in August 2007, Darwich elaborated on the circumstances that

caused her to flee Syria.  First, she clarified the nature of her business.  She explained that few

women in Syria own businesses and that before operating her plastics factory she had run a

fashion business.  Darwich further testified that Deebeh’s motivations for using her factory to

deal heroin were two‐fold:  financial gain and a desire to take advantage of Darwich because

she is Christian.  Later in the hearing, however, she attributed her troubles with Deebeh to his

desire to “get all the gains for himself” and push her out of the business.  She testified that the

authorities who receivedher complaint aboutDeebeh’s corruption hadcalledhim andtoldhim

about the allegations instead of investigating.  In response Deebeh spread rumors about her

having extramarital affairs, which tarnished her Christian reputation and caused her husband

to temporarily leave her.  Her husband, though present at the removal hearing, did not testify.

It was at this August 2007 hearing that Darwich first mentioned being beaten by security

forces during her one‐night detention on December 24, 2001, though later in the same hearing

she spoke again of her detention without mentioning physical abuse.  She explained that,

although Deebeh had personally confiscated her home and factory, he must have done so with

the support of the government “because he’s a member of the government and of the
No. 08‐2888 Page 4

intelligence.”  She conceded, however, that after her home was seized she and her children

stayed with her mother and otherrelatives for approximately a month without incident before

coming to America.

On cross‐examination, Darwich testified that friends in the business community had

advised her to take on Deebeh as a partner so that he could use his government connections to

help her with licensing and customs matters.  This time when asked about Deebeh’s role in the

government, she testified that he did not personally hold any government office but had family

connections in the government.  Darwich clarified that, before taking on Deebeh as a partner,

she had not experienced any problems with the Syrian government while running her fashion

business.  But she claimed that because of Deebeh, it would now be impossible for her to

conduct any business in Syria.

The IJ denied all relief.  First, the IJ discredited Darwich’s entire testimony, which doomed

her case.    The IJ noted that Darwich had given inconsistent accounts when testifying on

different days; she had altered her story about Deebeh’s purported connection to the Syrian

government, the nature of her complaints against him, the confiscation of her business, and the

alleged beating.  In the alternative, the IJreasoned that none ofthe harms described by Darwich

would qualify as persecution even if her testimony was truthful and, regardless, she had not

alleged persecution “on account of” a protected ground.  As the IJ saw things, Darwich had

recruited a corrupt partner into her business and complained when he cheated her, nothing

more.  Finally, the IJ concluded that Darwich, lacking a legitimate claim of past persecution,

had also failed to establish a well‐founded fear offuture persecution.  The IJ noted thatDarwich

had not presented any evidence that the Syrian government or Deebeh intended to harm her.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s opinion.  

Discussion

In her petition forreview Darwich argues that (1) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination

is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the confiscation of her property and Deebeh’s

threats combined to establish past persecution, and (3) the harms she suffered were on account

of a protected ground.  Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms IJ’s decision, we review the

IJʹs decision.  See Irasoc v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 727, 729 (7th Cir. 2008).  And we will uphold the

IJ’s decision so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.  See Kadia v. Holder, 557 F.3d 464,

467 (7th Cir. 2009).  To qualify for asylum, a discretionary remedy, the applicant must establish

a well‐founded fear of persecution,see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), Xiao v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 712, 716

(7th Cir. 2008), and to benefit from withholding of removal, a mandatory remedy, she must

show that there is a clear probability of persecution if she returns to her home country, see

Ingmantoro v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 646, 652 (7th Cir. 2008).  To obtain either remedy the applicant

must show that she fears persecution on account of her race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.  8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R.
No. 08‐2888 Page 5

1

 Because Darwich applied for asylum in 2003, her case is not affected by the revised

credibility standards of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which went into effect on May 11, 2005.  See

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Diallo v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 764, 766 n.1 (7th Cir. 2006).

§§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)(2); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir. 2008); Musollari v.

Mukasey, 545 F.3d 505, 508 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).  

Darwich first argues that the IJ improperly discredited her testimony, explaining that her

testimony was consistent and, furthermore, that any purported inconsistencies were not

material to her claim of persecution.  We review credibility determinations deferentially and

will uphold them unless the record compels a different conclusion.  See Tarraf v. Gonzales, 495

F.3d 525, 532 (7th Cir. 2007).1

The IJ identified several inconsistencies between Darwich’s application and hertestimony,

and within hertestimony,thatled him to discredit her story.  Most prominent was the omission

from her asylum application and initial testimony of any mention of the alleged beating during

her overnight detention.  Nowhere in the affidavit submitted with her asylum application, or

in her testimony at the June 2006 hearing, does she claim that she was beaten.  This omission

is significant and was a proper basis for discrediting her testimony: the purported overnight

detention wasDarwich’s only significant encounter with Syrian officials, it was the beating that

supposedly prompted her to flee Syria, and she never explained why such a significant piece

of information would have gone unmentioned for more than four years.  See Torres, 551 F.3d at

632‐33 (recognizing that petitioner’s failure to mention in asylum application the severe

mistreatment which allegedly prompted him to flee his country was a permissible basis for IJ

to find his testimony not credible); Shmyhelskyy v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 474, 480‐81 (7th Cir. 2007)

(recognizing that petitioner’s unexplained failure to mention brutal beating in asylum

application was a valid basis for discrediting his testimony); Korniejew v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 377,

384‐85 (7th Cir. 2004) (same); compare Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 969‐70 (7th Cir. 2003)

(overturning IJ’s adverse credibility decision where petitioner offered reasonable explanation

for failure to mention detention in asylum application).  And perhaps most telling is the fact

that Darwich goes to great lengths in her brief to explain other inconsistencies noted by the IJ

but says nothing about this hole in her story.

The IJ also found it significantthatDarwich toldconflicting stories regardingDeebeh’s role,

or lack thereof, in the government:    she variously described him as a military official,

government employee, member of the intelligence apparatus, and as a private citizen with no

official government role.   In her brief in this court, Darwich tries to minimize the varied

descriptions by saying that Deebeh could have been both a member of the ruling Ba’ath party

and a member of the ruling dominant Alawite sect.  But this is no answer at all to her vague

and conflicting descriptions of Deebeh’s connection to the Syrian government.  See Aung v.
No. 08‐2888 Page 6

Gonzales, 495 F.3d 742, 744‐46 (7th Cir. 2007) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on

IJʹs opinion that alienʹs testimony regarding significant events was vague and confusing).  

The IJ also discredited Darwich’s story because she was unable to offer any relevant

corroborating evidence related to the confiscation of her home and business; this too was a

legitimate reason for the IJ to base his adverse credibility finding upon.  See Ikama‐Obambi v.

Gonzales, 470 F.3d 720, 725 (7th Cir. 2006)(“[A]n IJ may disbelieve an applicant because she fails

to provide corroborating evidence, and subsequently deny her claim.”).   All the evidence

Darwich submitted was irrelevant to the confiscation of her property and her troubles with

Deebeh; thus, it was inadequate to explain her inconsistencies or bolster her alleged fears in

returning to Syria.  See Song Wang v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 615, 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that

corroborating evidence was inadequate to render alien’s story credible where it did not explain

inconsistencies in that story); Aung, 495 F.3dat 746 (explaining that corroborating evidence was

inadequate where it did not support alleged persecution).  Darwich tries to justify her lack of

corroborating evidence by referencing the country conditions in Syria and noting that “it

should be clear that asylum seekers and those assisting them must be careful not to transmit

information that can be used against them.”  But this explanation falls short.  There is no

evidence whatsoever that her Syrian family members faced danger if they sent affidavits to

America, nor does this explain why, at the very least, her husband could not have testified as

to the events that caused him to leave his wife and home to come to America.   Surely her

husband would know if his residence in Syria had been seized, and surely he would know

whether his wife had run a factory and, if so, with whom.  

Darwich also attempts toundermine other “slightinconsistencies” thatthe IJidentified.  But

importantly, while the IJ did identify the inconsistencies that Darwich takes issue with, he did

so only when recounting her story but did not rely on these less‐significant inconsistencies in

reaching his adverse‐credibility determination.  Because the IJ identified specific and material

reasons for disbelieving Darwich’s testimony, substantial evidence supports his adverse‐

credibility determination.    See Adekpe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2007).   That

testimony is the substance of Darwich’s claims for relief, and without it she could not prevail.

That is enough to decide this case, but, regardless, the IJ also was correct to conclude that

Darwich suffered no harm on account of a protected ground.    Darwich makes multiple

references to the fact that she is Christian, but she never alleged that Deebeh or the Syrian

government harmed her because she is Christian.  Rather, she testified that the threats against

her, her detention, and the confiscation of her property allresulted from her attempt to expose

Deebeh’s corruption.  She now argues that, by exposing Deebeh, she acted as a whistleblower

exposing governmental corruption.   

This court and others have held that aliens who seek to expose political corruption, such as

whistleblowers, may qualify as individuals persecuted on account of their political belief.
No. 08‐2888 Page 7

Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 690 (7th Cir. 2008); Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir.

2004) (collecting cases).  But to qualify forrelief, a whistleblower must seek a politicalresult by

publicly exposing corruption.  Haxhiu, 519 F.3d at 690; Musabelliu v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 991, 995‐

96 (7th Cir. 2006); Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374, 381 (7th Cir. 1997).  Here, Darwich never sought

to publicly expose Deebeh’s corruption.    In fact, she initially sought to benefit from his

governmental connections.  Her only act “against” corruption was to alert authorities that

Deebeh, a citizen with possible connections to the government, was stealing from her or

perhaps using her business as a frontfor criminal activities.  Simply alerting police of suspected

crime is a far cry from forming an anti‐corruption party or speaking out as a public gadfly

against political corruption.  See Marquez, 105 F.3d at 381.

Given that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision to discredit Darwich’s story, it

would be nothing more than a hypothetical exercise to address whetherthe harms she suffered

amountto persecution.  What’s more, because Darwich’s alleged injuries, even iftrue, were not

motivated by any animus towards a protected ground, it is unnecessary to address her

persecution argument.  Thus,the ourinquiry can end here.  Accordingly, weDENYthepetition

for review.