[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 16 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 28 -6 66 -3 17

LEON DA MASO DURAN-QUIROZ, a.k .a. Leon Dam as o Du ran , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Pet it io ne r Leo n Dam as o Du ran -Qu iro z se ek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardof Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1 of 10Im

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA’s) fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al affi rm in g the Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ’s) de ni al of Duran -Qu iro z’s ap pl ic at io ns forasylu m , withh ol di ng of rem ov al , rel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti onAgai ns t To rtu re (C AT), and can cel la ti on of r em ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al ity Act (I NA). After a th or ou gh rev ie w, we den y th e p et it io n i n p artan d d is m is s i n p art .

I. Dur an -Qu iro z, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Ni cara gu a, en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s witho utau th or iz at io n i n 1 98 7. In20 09 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecurit y (DHS) fi le d aNot ic e to App ear, ch arg in g Du ran -Qu iro z with re m ov ab il ity un de r 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ) — as anali enpre se ntinth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t b ei ng adm it te d o r pa ro le d —an d 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(7 )(A)(i )(I) —as a n a li enwho was no t i n p os se ss io n o f a v al idimm ig ran t v is a o r en try do cum en t. Duran -Qu iro z co nc ed edrem ov ab il ity , bu t h e fi le d app li cat io ns forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al an d can cel la ti on of r em ov al un de r th e INA, withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r CAT, an d, al te rn at iv el y , vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re. He al so so ug htasylum ba se d o n an app li cat io n pr ev io us ly file d i n 1 98 8. 1 At a h eari ng be fo re an IJ i n 2 01 0, Du ran -Qu iro z al le ge d tha t h e le ft The for mer Immigration and Natura liz ation Service , now the DHS, ter minated Dura

n- 1 Quiroz’s application for

lack of prosec ution in 1989 because he fa iled to appea r for his asylum interview. The DHS, I J , and B IA assumed that the a pplication rema ined pendinguntil he reinstated it in the instant ca se. B eca use neither

party disputes this assumpt ion, for purpose s of this appeal, we acc ept it. 2

Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 2 of 10Nica rag uain19 87 be cau se he su ffer edpe rs ecu ti on as ares ul t o f hi s o pp os it io n t o

th e San di ni st a reg im e an d tha t h e wou ldsu fferpe rs ecu ti on forth e sa m e rea so n i f he is returne d t o Ni cara gu a. The IJ de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io ns forasylum an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al ba se d o n a n a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, fi nd in g tha t Dur an -Qu iro z’s te st im on y was v ag ue , un sp eci fic , andha rdto fol lo w, esp eci al ly co nc ern in g the na tu re o f hi s o pp os it io n t o the reg im e an d o f hi s al le ge d d et en ti on an d t ortu re. The IJ a ls o e m ph as iz edanin co ns is te nc y be twee n Du ran -Qu iro z’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, wh ere h e in di cat edth athe was i m pr is on edinNica rag uafor13 da y s, an d h is he ari ng tes ti m on y , wher e h e st at edhe was i m pr is on edfor4 t o 5 m on th s. Th e IJals o c on si de redDura n- Qui ro z’s co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, whi ch co ns is te d o f th ree a ffi da vi ts fro m hi s s is te rs . Alth ou gh th e IJackno wled ge d tha t th e aff id av it s co nt ai ne d s pe ci fic in fo rm at io n s up po rti ng Duran- Qui ro z’s cl ai m , he fo un d tha t the y

were n otsu ffi ci en tl y

co rro bo rat in g b ecau se th ey di d n otex pl ai n ho w th e si st ers ob ta in edth e in fo rm at io n o r whe th er the y ha d p ers on al kn owl ed ge of th e ev en ts inqu es ti on . The IJ als o fo un d tha t Du ran -Qu iro z h adfai le d t o es tabl is h awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti onbe cau se th ere was no lo ng er a ci vi l warinNica rag ua , andhe wou ldno t s uf fer re ta li at io n fr om

op po si ng th e San di ni st as du rin g tha t war . The IJ a ls o p ret erm it te d Duran -Qu iro z’s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al ba se d o n adi squa li fy in g c on vi ct io n fo r ret ai l the ft. Th e IJfou ndth atth e 3 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 3 of 10th eftwas acri m e o f m or al tu rp itud e an d tha t Du ran -Qu iro z h adno t es tabl is he d

th athe was c on vi ct edof acri m e wit h apo ss ib le puni sh m en t o f le ss th anon e y ear of im pr is on m en t, an d, the refo re, h e was no t el ig ib le for can cel la ti on of r em ov al . Se e Ma tt er

of Co rt ez , 25 I. & N. Dec. 30 1, 3 07 -0 8 (2 01 0) . The IJ , ho wev er, gr an te d Du ran -Qu iro z v ol un tary de pa rtu re, wit h a n a lt ern at iv e rem ov al ord er t o Nica rag uash ou ldhe fai l t o d ep artvo lu nt ari ly. On ap pe al to th e BIA, Duran -Qu iro z arg ue d tha t the IJ e rredinm ak in g i ts adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a ndth athi s re ta il -th eftco nv ic ti on di d n ot pr et erm itcan cel lati on of r em ov al . The BI A, agr eei ng with the IJ, d is m is se d h is ap pe al . This is Dura n- Qui ro z’s pe ti ti onforrev ie w. II. W e rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on ex cep t t o the ex te ntth atth e BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ In so far a s the [BIA] ado pt s the IJ’s re as on in g, we wi ll rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s wel l.” Id . Alth ou gh th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s de ci si on he re, the BIA ad op te d the IJ’s re as on in g a ndbri efl y art ic ul at edit s reas on s fo r do in g s o, an d, thu s, we re vi ew bo th de ci si on s. W e rev ie w factua l d et erm in at io ns un de r th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al ” subs tant ia lev id en ce t es t, an d we m

us t af firm a 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 the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Id . at 4 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 4 of 1012 83 -8 4 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . To rev ers e a BIA fa ctua l fi nd in g, we

m us t fi ndth at“ th 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 onis no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of t he adm in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). Lik e o th er fa ctua l fi nd in gs , cred ib il ity de te rm in at io ns are rev ie wedun de r th e subs tant ia l-e vi de nc e te st . For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An al ie n m ay

qu al ify for as y lu m

by sho win g e ithe r: (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n apro te ct edgro un d, i nc lu di ng po li ti cal op in io n, o r (2 ) a “ well -fo un de d fear ” th athe wil l b e p ers ecu te d b as edon a pr ot ect edgro un d. Zh en g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 45 1 F .3d12 87 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The al ie n b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng asylu m

eli gi bi li ty by

off eri ng “ cred ib le , di rect , andsp eci fic ev id en ce in th e rec or d.” For

gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 6- 87 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The cred ib le tes ti m on y

of a n app li can t al on e m ay be su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shasylu m el ig ib il ity . Id . at 1 28 7. “ Co nv ers el y , an a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a lo ne m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he de ni al of an a sylum ap pl ic at io n.” Id . The weak er th e te st im on y , th e g reat er the ne edforco rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. Y an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ 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 the writ te n ap pl ic at io n, an d the ab se nc e o f em be ll is hm en ts .” Rui

z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen . , 44 0 F .3d 5 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 5 of 1012 47 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

Fo r th ere t o b e a p ro pe r adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, the IJ m us t h av e m ad e a cl ean , exp li ci t d et erm in at io n o f cred ib il ity . Y an g , 41 8 F .3dat 1 20 1.

“ Onc e anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s m ad e, th e b ur de n i s o n the ap pl ic an t al ie n to sh ow tha t the IJ’s cr ed ib il ity de ci si on was n otsupp orte d b y sp eci fic , cog en t reas on s o r was no t b as edon subs tant ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d) . Dur an -Qu iro z h as fai le d t o s at is fy th is bu rd en . Here, th e IJan d B IA m ad e a cl eanadve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a ndga ve sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r fin di ng Dura n- Qui ro z in cred ib le , po in ti ng to , am on g o th er thi ng s, a d is crep an cy be twee n h is asylu m

ap pl ic at io n a ndhi s t es ti m on y . Se e Dai li de v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 38 7 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (aff irming anadve rs e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n b as edon a fi nd in g tha t the ali en ’s tes ti m on y co nf li ct edwith p rio r an swe rs gi ve n i n o th er d oc um en ts ). The d is crep an cy be twee n Duran -Qu iro z’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, wh ere h e in di cat edth athe was i m pr is on edfor13 da y s, an d h is he ari ng tes ti m on y , wher e h e st at edhe was i m pr is on edfor4 t o 5 m on th s, was a si gn ifi can t o ne th atsupp orts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g. 2 The REAL

I D Act of

2005 provides that adve rse c redibility deter minations may

be 2 premised upon inconsistenc ies that do not g o to “the hea rt of the a pplicant’s cla im.” SeePub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(a)(3) , (d)( 4)(C), 119 Stat. 231, 303, 305 (c odified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)( 1)(B )(iii), 1229a( c)( 4)(C)) . Be cause Dura n-Quiroz filed his asy

lum application befor e these amendments bec ame e ffe ctive, they do not apply

to his claims. This court has not decide d 6 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 6 of 10Furth er, the IJ a ndth e BIA were pe rm itte d t o d is cred itDura n- Qui ro z’s

te st im on y th atth e la wy er wh o p rep aredhi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n i nc orrect ly tra ns cri be d h is st at em en ts inli gh t o f th e fac t tha t Du ran -Qu iro z h as fai le d t o p oi nt to an y othe r ev id en ce i n the reco rdth atsu ffi ci en tl y ex pl ai ns th is di sc rep an cy . Se e Ch en v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th at of feri ng ten ab le ex pl an at io ns alo ne to ex pl ai n i nc on si st en ci es do es no t n eces sa ril y co m pe l re ve rs al of t he IJ’s cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n) . The reco rdals o s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s fi nd in g tha t Du ran -Qu iro z’s te st im on y was v ag ue , un sp eci fic , andha rdto fol lo w. For e xa m pl e, he co ul d n ot su ffi ci en tl y

art ic ul at e why he d is ag reedwith the San di ni st a reg im e o r why he swi tc he d fr om

supp orti ng itto op po si ng it . Andhi s t es ti m on y co nc ern in g h is de te nt io n, t ortu re, an d m il it ary se rv ic e was sev erel y lac ki ng inde ta il . Furth er, Duran -Qu iro z d idno t p res en t an y co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e o th er th anth ree a ffi davi ts fro m hi s s is te rs , andth e rec or d s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s fin di ng th atth e aff

id av it s wer e d es erv in g o f m in im al weig htbe cau se th ey di d n ot ex pl ai n h ow the si st ers ob ta in edth e in fo rm at io n o r whe th er the y ha d p ers on al kn owl ed ge of t he ev en ts inqu es ti on . whether adver se cr edibility

deter minations in pre-REAL

I D Act c ases must be ba sed on inconsistencies that g o to the hear t of the cla im. See Shk

ambi v. U.S. Att’y

Gen. , 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009). Nonethe less, we ne ed not dec ide this issue beca use the inconsistencies identified by the I J and the B IA in this case r elate dir ectly to Duran- Quiroz’s claims of per secution. 7

Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 7 of 10Bec au se we co nc lu de th atsubs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s

co nc lu si on th atDura n- Qui ro z is in el ig ib le forasylum onth e b as is of a n a dv ers e cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n a ndth e in su ffi ci en cy of c orro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, he can no t s at is fy

th e h ig he r bu rd en s fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA or rel ie f un de r th e CAT. Zh en g , 45 1 F .3dat 1 29 2. III. On ap pe al , Duran- Qui ro z arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e th atth e Supr em e Co urt’s de ci si on in Var te la s v. Ho lder , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 47 9 (2 01 2) in va li da te s the IJ’s an d BIA’s fi nd in g tha t h e was in el ig ib le forcan cel la ti on of r em ov al . W e rev ie w ou r subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Amaya -Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 46 3 F.3 d 1 24 7, 1 25 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . In a p et it io n fo r rev ie w, we gen eral ly onl y ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er cl ai m s tha t h av e b eenadm in is tra ti ve ly exh au st ed . Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( d) (1 ); Su nd ar v. I.N.S . , 32 8 F .3d13 20 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thu s, we g en eral ly lackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w cla im s n otrai se d b efo re the BIA. Amaya -Art un du ag a , 46 3 F .3dat 1 25 0. Al th ou gh so m e cl ai m s m ay no t re qu ire ex haus ti on be cau se th e BIA d oe s n otha ve th e p owe r to ad jud ic at e th os e cl ai m s, whe re the BIA can rem edy a cl ai m , th e ex haus ti on requi rem en t ap pl ie s wi th ful l fo rce. Se e S

un da r , 32 8 F .3dat 1 32 5. In Var te la s , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t ap pl y in g the Ill eg al Im m ig rat io n Refo rm an d Immig ran t Re sp on si bi li ty A ct(IIRI RA) t o apre -IIR IRA co nv ic ti on , 8 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 8 of 10th ereb y

de pr iv in g the ali enof h is pre vi ou sl y -h el d ri gh t t o re tu rnto th e U.S. aft er br ie f tr ip s ab ro ad , was i m pe rm is si bl y

retro act iv e. 13 2 S . Ct. at14 83 -8 4. Du ran Qui ro z arg ue s tha t b ecau se IIRIRA cou ldno t b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y to a pr eIIRI RA co nv ic ti on in Var te la s , itcan no t b e h ere e ithe r. Dura n- Qui ro z d idno t rai se th is arg um en t b efo re ei th er the IJ o r th e BIA. Altho ug h Var te la s was de ci de d a fte r th e BIA i ss ue d i ts de ci si on inth is cas e, si mil ar ar gu m en ts co nc ern in g II RIRA’s re tro act iv e ap pl ic ab il ity to pre -IIR IRA co nv ic ti on s ex is te d, an d c ou ldha ve be enrai se d, b efo re Var te la s was d eci de d. Se e, e.g . , I.N.S. v. St . Cyr , 53 3 U.S. 2 89 , 31 4- 26 (20 01 ) (co ns id eri ng anIIRIRA retro act iv ity arg um en t). Furth er, the BIA co ul d h av e p ro pe rly hear d thi s cl ai m be cau se Var te la s m erel y in te rp ret edth e INA, whi chth e BIA h as th e au th or ity to do . Se e Var te la s , 13 2 S . Ct. at14 86 -8 7; Qui nc hi a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 55 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ther efo re, b ecau se Dura n- Qui ro z fai le d t o a dm in is tra ti ve ly exh au sthi s Var te la s cla im

an d the re i s n o c og ni zab le ex cu se or e xc ep ti on , we lac k juris di ct io n to co ns id er i t. Bec au se Dura n- Qui ro z fai le d t o ra is e an y othe r arg um en ts inhi s b rie f to th is co urt co nc ern in g h is eli gi bi li ty for can cel la ti on of r em ov al , he h as ab an do ne d th os e is su es . 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 ). IV. 9 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 9 of 10The reco rddo es no t co m pe l re ve rs al of t he BIA’s or de r affi rm in g the de ni al of Dura n- Qui ro z’s ap pl ic at io ns forasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , un de r bo th th e INA an d the CAT, bas edon anadve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n. We la ckjuri sd ic ti on , ho wev er, t o c on si de r Dur an -Qu iro z’s arg um en ts co nc ern in g the de ni al of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of r em ov al . W e d en y hi s p et it io n i n p art , an d d is m is s i t i n p art . PETI TI ON DENI ED in pa rt a nd DI SMI SSED i n pa rt.

10 Case: 12-10169 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 10 of 10