FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 29, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 90 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -3 94 -0 09 SANG KYU PARK, HEE JUNG LEE , JONG HYUK PARK, Pet it io ne rs ,

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 29 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

San g Kyu Park , hi s wi fe, Hee J un g Lee , an d t he ir m in orso n, J on g Hyuk 1 Park(“ Jo ng ”), p et it io n fo r rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) or de r affi rm in g t he Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f th ei r cl ai m s fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d re li ef u nd er the Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t Tortur e (“ CAT”). Afterrev ie w, we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. 2 Park , a cit iz enof S ou th Kore a, cl ai m eda well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on be cau se of h is m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up . Spe ci fic al ly, Parkcla im edth atif h e returne d t o S ou th Kore a h e wou ldbe jail edan d fi ne d fo r fai li ng to co m

pl y with S ou thKore a’s co m pu ls ory m il it ary se rv ic e requi rem en ts . Acco rd in g t o P ark ’s hea rin g t es ti m on y , he s erv edin th e So ut h Ko rean Arm y Although L ee a

nd J ongfiled sepa

rate applications for

asylum, withholdi ngof re moval 1 and CAT re lief, they

did not challeng e the de nial of their c laims before the B IA and do not ra ise their sepa rate claims in this appeal. Ac cording ly , L ee a nd J onghave a

bandoned the ir asylum, withholding of r emoval and CAT c laims on appea l, and, in any event, we lack jurisdiction to consider the m beca

use of their

failure to raise them be fore the B IA. See I mmigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) § 242(d)( 1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ; Amaya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). On appe al, Park states that he does not cha lleng e the I J ’s denial of his untim ely

asylum 2 claim. Thus, the only

claims befor e us ar e Park’ s claims of withholding of remova l and CAT relief . To the extent L ee a

nd J ongasser

t derivative w ithholding of re moval and CAT cla ims, the statutes and re gulations gove rningwithholding of r emoval and CAT r elief do not c reate derivative rights. Delg ado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F .3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007) (statingthat “ther e ar e no derivative bene fits associated w ith a grant of w ithholding of re moval”); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (omitting mention of derivative bene fits). Acc ording ly , we de ny L ee’ s and Jong’s derivative claims of withholding of remova l and CAT re lief on that basis.

2fo r 26 m on th s fr om 19 92 to 19 94 , bu t af

te rwardfai le d t o a tt en d the requi red an nu al res erv e tr ai ni ng . Parkst at edth athe rece iv edno ti ces to rep ort fo r tr ai ni ng be gi nn in g i n 2 00 0 o r 20 01 , bu t d idno t co m pl y . Parkth enrece iv edwarn in gs th at he wou ldrece iv e a thr ee- o r fi ve -y ear p ris on sen te nc e o r a $ 5,0 00 fin e. No o ne ev er at te m

pt edto co ll ecta fi ne fro m hi m . In ap pr ox im at el y

20 03 , th e p ol ic e vi si te d P arka co up le of t im es , bu t d idno t arres t h im . In Oct ob er 2 00 3, Pa rk rece iv eda fi na l warni ng th at , if h e d idno t re po rt f ortra in in g, h e wou ldbe sen t t o jail . Parken te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n M ay 20 04 . The IJ a ndth e BIA d en ie d P ark ’s withh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im ba se d i n pa rt o n afin di ng th athe was n otcred ib le . Alte rn at iv el y , th e IJ an d t he BIA co nc lu de d t ha t, ev enif c red ib le , Parkha d n otsh own a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, th e IJ an d t he BIA ex pl ai ne d t ha t (1 ) co m pu ls ory m il it ary se rv ic e o rd in ari ly is n ota fo rm of p ers ecu ti on , (2) Parkdi d n otcla im a rel ig io us or e th ic al ba si s fo r hi s re fu sa l t o c om pl et e h is res erv e tr ai ni ng an d (3 ) Parkadm it te d h e wou ldbe pu ni sh edth e sa m e as any on e el se in So ut h Ko rea f or no t fu lfi ll in g h is m il it ary du ty. On ap pe al , Parkarg ue s t ha t t he IJ’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s n ot supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. To e st ab li sh eli gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al to a co un try, an ap pl ic an t m us t s ho w th athi s “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe 3th reat en edinth atco un try becaus e o f [h is ] race , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” INA § 2 41 (b )(3 )(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A). An app li can t s eek in g re li ef fro m rem ov al m

us t es tabl is h el ig ib il it y by offer in g “ cred ib le , di rect , andsp eci fic ev id en ce i n the reco rd .” Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Alt ho ug h a n a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a lo ne m ay supp ort t he de ni al of a wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al cla im , if the ap pl ic an t p ro du ces ev id en ce o th er tha n hi s t es ti m on y , th e IJ m

us t co ns id er thi s ev id en ce as well . Id. Inm ak in g a n adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, the IJ m us t b e ex pl ic it , Yang v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 18 F.3 d 1 19 8, 1 20 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) , andm us t o ffer“ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s” forth e de te rm in at io n. Ru iz v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 40 F.3d12 47 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . In ev al ua ti ng cred ib il it y , th e IJ m us t co ns id er the

“ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” an d a ll rel ev an t fa ct or s, re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th ey go to th e “ he art ” o f th e ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m . INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i); Ch env. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 28 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 3 Although § 1158 g overns a sylum claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C) pr ovides that the I J ’s 3 cre dibilit y

deter minations for purposes of deter mining elig ibilit y

for withholdingof re moval are g overne d by

§ 1158(b)( 1)(B ). Park’ s withholding of r emoval cla im is subj ect to the ne w 4Fu rth erm or e, “ [t]he weak er an ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y , . . . th e g reat er the

ne edfor co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce.” Yan g, 4 18 F.3dat 1 20 1; see als o INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at , if the IJ co nc lu de s t ha t the ap pl ic an t s ho ul d p ro vi de ev id en ce tha t co rro bo rat es hi s te st im on y , th e ap pl ic an t m us t p ro vi de co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce u nl es s h e can sh ow th athe do es no t h av e itan d c an no t re as on ab ly obt ai n i t). Here, the IJ a ndth e BIA g av e sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r fi nd in g P arkno t cred ib le . Spe ci fic al ly, th e IJ an d t he BIA b ot h p oi nt edou t t ha t Parkwas unabl e

4 to an swe r sp eci fic qu es ti on s ab ou t wh enhe fir stfai le d t o a tt en d re se rv e tr ai ni ng an d h ow m an y

ses si on s h e m is se d, an d h e d idno t p res en t re as on ab le co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce, s uc h a s t he no ti ces an d warni ng s h e rec ei ve d. Th e IJ no te d t ha t Park ’s wife , Lee, was u nabl e to co rro bo rat e Park’s t es ti m on y be cau se sh e was un aware Parkha d fa il edto co m

pl y with h is res erv e dut y

ob li ga ti on s u nt il aft er the y cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 2 00 4.
standards f

or eva luating c redibility

found in the REAL

I D Act be cause his application was f iled in 2008, after

the REAL

I D Act’ s amendments took ef fec t on May

11, 2005. See REAL

I D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(h) (2), 119 Stat. 231, 305. The B IA af

firmed the IJ ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination and agree d with the I J ’s 4 rea soning. Thus, w e re view both the B IA’s dec ision and the I J ’s re asoningsupporting the adver se cr edibility

deter mination. Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F .3d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 2010). Credibility

finding s arefac tual deter minations we revie w under the substantial evidenc e test. I d. “To re versethe findingunder that standard, we must conclude not only that the evidenc e supports a contra

ry finding , but that it compels one.” I d. (quotation marks a nd brac kets omitted). 5The reas on s g iv enare s up po rte d b y subs tant ia l ev id en ce. Dur in g t he he ari ng , Parkco ul d n otreca ll when he fir stm is se d ares erv e tr ai ni ng ses si on , al th ou gh he was a sk edm ul ti pl e ti m es by his co un se l. Whenask edho w m an y ti m es he att en de d t rai ni ng , Parkrep li ed“ [a]bo utsi x t im es . Three or f ou r ti m es .” Whe n t he IJ a sk edwhi ch tra in in g s es si on s Pa rkha d m is se d, Parkres po nd edth at he ha d “ m is se d qui te a few t im es ,” an d “ [f]our or fiv e ti m es ” b utco ul d n otsupp ly an y lo cat io ns or d at es . Parkst at edth atth ere wer e so m an y ses si on s t ha t h e h ad fo rg ot te n. Th e IJ reque st edth atParkbe m or e sp eci fic in hi s t es ti m on y , as t he m is se d t rai ni ng ses si on s wer e th e cru x o f hi s cl ai m , bu t Pa rkwas u nabl e to pr ov id e m or e d et ai l. Fu rth erm or e, hi s wi fe Lee’s t es ti m on y di d n otco rro bo rat e Park’s t es ti m on y . Lee t es ti fie d t ha t s he was una ware Pa rkha d n otco m pl ie d wi th hi s m il it ary du ty un ti l af te r sh e an d P arkcam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Lee n ev er s aw an y of t he warn in gs or n ot ic es Parksai d wer e se ntto th ei r ho m e an nu al ly anddi d n ottes ti fy to see in g t he po li ce tha t, ac co rd in g t o P ark , cam e to th e h ou se to warnhi m . Fi na ll y , Lee es ti m at edth atParkha d fa il edto rep ort fo r res erv e tr ai ni ng “ m ay be 10 , 15 ti m es .” The do cu m en tary

ev id en ce al so di d n otco rro bo rat e Park’s t es ti m on y as t o hi s m is se d re se rv e tr ai ni ng . Parkdi d n otpro vi de co pi es of t he no ti ces an d 6warn in gs he sai d h e rec ei ve d o r an y othe r do cu m en ts in di cat in g tha t t he So ut h Kor eango ve rn m en t was aware t ha t Pa rk ha d n otco m

pl et edhi s m il it ary res erv e tra in in g. In st ead , Parkpro du cedev id en ce p rimaril y in th e fo rm

of b ack gr ou nd do cu m en ts , su chas p as sp orts an d b irt h a ndm arri ag e certi fic at es , as wel l as ne ws art ic le s an d c ou nt ry

rep orts forSo ut h Ko rea. Park ’s arg um en t tha t the IJ r el ie d o n “ m in orde ta il ” to di sc red ithi m is un av ai li ng . Firs t, as th e IJ no te d dur in g t he he ari ng , Park ’s fai lu re t o re po rt f or m il it ary res erv e tr ai ni ng was a t the he artof h is futur e p ers ecu ti on cla im . In an y ev en t, af te r th e REAL ID Act, the IJ m ay ba se a cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n o n a ll rel ev an t fa ct or s, re gard le ss of wh ethe r th ey go to th e h eartof t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m . INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i). Pa rksu gg es ts th athi s l ack of de ta il is un de rs tand ab le du e to th e fac t tha t fi ve y ears ha d p as se d. Th is ex pl an at io n, h owe ve r, do es no t co m pe l a c on cl us io n t ha t Pa rkwas c red ib le . See Sh ka m bi v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 84 F.3d10 41 , 10 51 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); C he n, 4 63 F.3 d a t 1 23 3. Parkdo es no t ar gu e th atot he r ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , witho uthi s di sc red it edtes ti m on y , com pe ls a co nc lu si on th athe ha d awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on . Becau se we co nc lu de th atth e ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s s up po rte d by sub st an ti al ev id en ce, we d o n otad dr es s t he IJ’s an d t he BIA’s al te rn at iv e 7fin di ng th at , eve n i f de em edcred ib le , Park ’s tes ti m on y di d n otest ab li sh futur e pe rs ecu ti on on a pr ot ect edgro un d. As t o P ark ’s CAT clai m , th e rec or d a ls o d oe s n otco m pe l t he co nc lu si on th at Parkis en ti tl edto CAT rel ie f. Parkpro vi de d n o e vi de nc e th athe wou ldbe to rtu redby the So ut h Ko rean go ve rn m en t fo r hi s fa il ur e to co m pl et e h is m il it ary res erv e dut y . Alth ou gh Parkcla im s t ha t h e wil l b e im pr is on edan d fi ne d, t he po te nt ia l i m

pr is on m en t an d fi ne are l awfu l s an ct io ns th atdo no t co ns ti tu te to rtu re. See 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 8( a)(3 ) (ex cl ud in g fr om th e d efi ni ti on of t ortu re an y pa in an d su ffer in g re su lt in g fr om

lawf ul san ct io ns , su ch as “

jud ic ia ll y im po se d s an ct io ns an d o th er en fo rcem en t ac ti on s au th or iz edby law”). PETI TI ON DENI ED.

8