[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1053 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI A N o. A 79- 419- 913 BIM BOLA MUFLIAT SAUBAN, a. k. a. S ha naA kuf

fo , Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Review of a D ecision of the Bo ar d of I mmigr at ion A ppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ay 1 8, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Bim bola Mufliat Sauban, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petition s this cou rt fo r re vie w of

the or de r by the Bo ar d of I mmigr at ion A ppe al s ( “ BI A ”) a ff ir mingSauban offe rs no substantive ar g ument about the denial of CAT relief : this claim is abandoned. 1 See Sepulveda

v. U.S. A ttorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (pe titioner abandons issue by failing to offer

arg ument on that issue).
2 the I mmigr at ion Jud ge ’ s de nia l of a sy lum , de nia l of

w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, a nd d en i al o f r el i ef

u n d ert h e U n i t ed Na t i o n s Co n v en t i o n Ag ai n s tTo rt u re (C AT)
. We 1 de ny he r pe tit ion
. Sauba n in iti al lysou ght

a sy lum ba se d on he r re lig ion

-- Ch ri sti an -- be cause she fear ed persecution by a cult that previously had attacked her a nd had held her ag ai nst he r w ill
. S he c la imedthat he r m oth er , agov ernm en t w orke r, w as kil le d in 1997 in an a nti -g ove rn m en t r iot a nd tha t he r fathe r w as kil le d in ar el igi ous ri ot i n 20 00 . She cla im ed th athe r pa ren ts were Ch ris ti an . A ft er he r fathe r w as kil le d, he r fathe r’ s f ri en d, Mr
. G be m sio la , too k he r an d h erb ro t h er s t o an o t h ert o wn i n Ni g er i a, wh er e M rs . I ku d ai s i , wh o k n ew Sa u b an ’s fathe r, a llo w edS au ba n a nd h er br oth er s to li ve w ith he r. I kuda isi die d about nin e
m onths l at er . A ft er

I kuda isi die d, S au ba n w as vis ite d byse ve ra l pe rs ons w ho ind ic at edthat the y w er e m em be rs of ac ult that w or shi pe d th e spi ri t of the w ind , that Ikudaisi was a cult leader , a nd that sh e had provided Sauban’s name as her
re pla ce m en t w he n sh e die d. S au ba n de cl ine d to j oin , but c ult m em be rs la te r too k he r to a shrine , w he re the y c omm en ce d ar itu al a nd c ut h er ha ir , c lothe s, w ri sts ,3

he ad , c he st, a nd b ac k. A ft er S au ba n st ill r ef

use d to j oin , she w as he ld c ap tiv e fo r tw o w ee ks, but

she the n e sc ap eda nd l ef t the c ountry . S au ba n f

ears that the c ult
w ill tr ac k he r dow n if

she is re turne d to N ige ri a an d th at the gov ernm en t w ill not protect her. The I J initially denied Sauban’ s asy lum application, but the BIA rem anded for m ore fa ct-finding. O n rem and, Sauban raised a new claim : that her uncle, L ukum an , w oul d f

or ce he r to u nde rg o c ir cu m ci sio n, or f em al e ge nit al m

uti la tio n (F G M) , if she r etur ne d to N ige ri a. S au ba n pr es en te d th e af fi da vit of he r fe m al e
co usi n, Ru ka y at

O y ew ole , w ho h adli ve d in the U nit edS ta te s bu t ha d r etur ne d to N ige ri a on v ac at ion a nd f eare d th at the ir f am ilyw oul d su bj ec t bo th S au ba n a nd he rs el f to FGM. Sauban also offere d several re ports abou t the conditi ons of Nigeria that show ed( 1) the e xis te nc e of Ch ri sti an -M usl im

c onf lic ts i n so m e part s of

N ige ri a and (2) that FG M still occurs in parts of Nigeria. Sauban also presented article s ab out N ige ri an c ult

a ct ivi tie s a nd d ea ths r es ult ing f ro m c la she s be tw ee n c ult gr oups . T he I J a ga in r ej ec te d S au ba n’ s c la im s, de te rm ini ng tha t sh e ha d no t testified credibly and that her claim s wer e not supp orted by evidence. The BIA af fi rmed
.“We revie w only the [BIA’s] de cision, except to the extent itexpressly adopts the IJ ’s opinion.” 2 Al Najjar v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). In this case the B IA adopted theIJ ’s de c isi one xce pt f

or tw o mi no r de tails ; so we prima ri ly re vie w theIJ’s ana ly sis a s if it w e retheB IA’ s. 4 Sauba n arg ue s th at

the I J’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lit y de te rm ina tio n w as ba se d on speculation , c onjec ture, and personal opi nion ; and she argues that she provid ed sp eci fic , cred ib le , and co ns is te nttes ti m on y ab ou t h er cl ai m s o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on . W e upho ld the I J’ s a nd the BI A ’ s de ci sio ns. We r ev i ew t h e B IA ’s an d IJ ’s fa ct u al d et er mi n at i o n s -- i n cl u d i n g t h e I J ’s 2 credibility determination s--under the substanti al evidence test. Forgue v. U. S. A tto rn eyG en . , 401 F
. 3d 1 282, 128 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. U nde r the hig hly de fe re nti al sub sta nti al e vid en ce te st, w e m ust a ff ir m the BI A ’ s de ci sio n “ if

it is supp orted by rea sonable, substan tial, a nd probativ e evidence on the rec ord
co n s i d er ed as a w h o l e. ” I d . ( ci t at i o n o mi t t ed ). “ To re v er s e t h e [ BI A’s an d ] IJ ’s fa ct f ind ing s, w e m

ust f indthat the r ec or d no t on lysup ports r ev er sa l, but c om pe ls it. ” Me ndoz a v. U
. S. A tto rn eyG en . , 327 F
. 3d 1 283, 128 7 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) (e m pha sis a dde d)
. A nd o n c re dib ili tyde te rm ina tio ns, w e m aynot

sub sti tut e our j udgmen t f

or that of the I J. F or gue , 401 F
. 3d a t 12 86. A n a lie n m ayobt ai n a sy lum if she is a “ re fu ge e” : a

pe rs on u nw ill ing to return to her country of nationality “ because of perse cution o r a w ell-founded fear of pe rs ec uti on o n a cc ount

of, ” am ong oth er

thi ngs, r el igi on o r m em

be rs hip in aSauban conte nds that we should discount these doc u m en t s b ec au s e they wer e provide d by 3 Luk uman, wh o h a d a mo tiv e fo r p ro vid ing falseinf ormatio n: h e wi sh e d Saub a n to re turn to Ni g e ri a to u nd e rg o F GM . B ut , in dete rm ini ng wh e the r s ub stanti a l e vid e nc e su pp orts theIJ’s a dv e rs e cre dibilit y

dec is io n , w ec an n o t i g n ore that these docume nts--which w ereprese nted on her behalf --a re inc onsi st entwi th S aub an’s tes ti mo nyabo utth e ti mes and cir cum st ances of S aub an’s pare nts ’ d e aths
. We also no te so me int e rn a l in c on sis te nc ie s inSaub a n’ s te sti mon y . Wh ileSaub a n in iti a lly 4 t es t i fi ed th ats h e d i d n o t kn o w h o w t o co n t ac tLu ku m an , i n s t ea dco m m u n i ca t i n g wi th h i mth ro u gh the neig hbor, Gbe msiola, Sauban later stated that she h ad s p o k en dire ctly to Lukuman and that Gbemsiola had gi ven her a phone numbe r for

Lukuman. Also, Sauban initially indicated that she did not know who her

brothers w ereliving with while she w as in a United States de tention center , bu t sh e late r s tate d th at th e y we reliv ing wi th a

wo man n a me d F a ws at. 5 part ic ular soc ia l gr oup. 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1 101( a) (4 2) (A ), 115 8( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). T he
as y lum appl ic an t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng s ta tut or y “ re fu ge e” status w ith spe ci fi c an d c re dib le e vid en ce . A l N ajj ar v. A shc ro ft , 257 F
. 3d 1 262, 128 4, 128 7 (1 1th Ci r. 200 1)
. B ut a n a dve rs e cr ed ibi lit y de te rm ina tio n a lon e m aybe suf

fi ci en t to s uppo rt

the de nia l of

a sy lum r el ie f. S ee F or gue , 401 F
. 3d a t 12 87. Su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the I J’ s de te rm ina tio n th at

S au ba n di d no t testify cre dibly
. Sauban testified that her m other died in 19 97 and th at her f ather die d in 200 0. B ut a ff

ida vit s th at

S au ba n pr es en te d f

ro m he r au nt, A de m ola , a nd her uncle, Lukum an, indicate that her m other died in 19 99 and th at her f ather died in 1 998. A lso , a lth ough S au ba n st at edthat he r fathe r die d in r el igi ous ri ots ,

3 Lukum an indicated that he had died from illness. Further, Sauban asserted that her pare nts were Christian, but docum entaryevidence showed that they we re bur ie d a cc or din g to Mu sli m tr ad iti on. 4B e c aus e Saub a n ha s faile d to e sta bli sha c laim o f a sylum

ontheme ri ts, sh e ne c e ssa ri ly fails to 5 establish elig ibilit y

for withholding of re moval. See F org ue, 401 F .3d at 1288 n.4. 6 S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e I J ’s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y S a u b a n ’s c l a i ms fo r la ck of e vid en ce . S au ba n pr es en te d in fo rm at ion about Ch ri sti an -M usl im conflict in parts of Niger ia, but th e evidence w as not clear that Sauban’s f ather had died because of his religion. Sauban presented no evidence, apart fr om her testim ony , c orroborating th e existence of the w ind cult o r that the cult m em bers would harm

or kill her because she w ould not join them
. And although Sauban of fe re d art ic le s about

c ult -r el at edde aths, the art ic le s sh ow edthat the se de aths
res ul te d fr om

cla sh es be twee n ri va l cu lt s. Fu rthe r, e ve n th ough S au ba n pr es en te d e vid en ce that F G M s til l oc cu rs in N ige ri a, the e vid en ce doe s no t sh ow that sh e w oul d ha ve to unde rg o F G M i f she returned to Niger ia, especially in the ligh t of the situation of her c ousin , w ho had returned to Niger ia but had avoid ed undergoin g FGM. W e also note that Sauban fa ile d to r ai se the F G M c la im during he r ini tia l a sy lum pr oc ee din g. In s u m , t h e e v i d en ce d o es n o tco m p el u s t o re v er s e t h e I J ’s an d t h e B IA ’s decisions that Sauban’ s testim ony wa s not credible or that she establish ed persecution on accountof Sauban’ s religion or m em bership in a particular social gr oup. 5 PE TITION DEN IED
.