The H onorab le Ly nn A delm an, D is tr ic t Jud ge f or the Easte rn  Dis t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1397 P AUL K IORK IS, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 046 101 699.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 19, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 28, 2011

Befo re C UD AH Y an d R OV NER, C irc u it Judges , an d A DE LMA N, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . In 200 7, the De p artm ent o f H om el and Secur i ty pla c ed PaulKio rk i s, a Lebanese ci ti zen who had been l ega l l y r esi ding i n the Unite d Sta tes

### 2 N o. 10

- 1397 for ov er a d ec ad e, in to rem ov a l p ro c ee d in gs d u e t o h is pri orco nvi ctio n forposs ess i on o fa contr ol l ed substa nce. K i or ki s co nceded that he w as re m ovabl e, but fi l ed an a p p l i c a t i o n s e e k i n ga s y l u m a n d o th erf o r ms o fr e l i e f

. An i m m i gr ati on co urt denie d his r equest f oras yl um after c on d u c tin g a fu ll m er its h e a rin g, fin d in g th at K iork is had fa i l ed to es tabl i sh thathe ha d a well

- est abl i shed fearo ffuture perse cuti on o n the basi s ofa sta tutor i l yprot ecte d gro und . Kio rk i s a pp eal ed the i m m i gr ati on c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to th e B oa rd of I m m igr at ion A p p ea ls (BIA ). A one-m em ber p an el ofthe B oard de nied K iorki s’s ap p ea l an d affirm ed th e im m igr at ion co u rt ’s a n aly sis in i ts enti re ty. K ior ki s fi l ed an appealwith thi s co urt, al l eging tha t the i m m i gr ati on co urt and the Boar d fa i l ed t o c o n s i d e ra l l o fh i s fu tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n c l a i ms . We a ffi r m th e d e c i s i o n s b e l o w.

I . B a c kg r o und P au l K ior k i s i s a n A ss yr ian C h ris tia n w h o w as bo rn in B e i r u t, L e b a n o n in 1 9 8 4 . T w e l v e y e a r s la t e r, K i o rk is

— a l o ng w ith h i s f ather, m othe r and fo ur s ibl i ngs

— obt ai ned an i m m i g r an t vi sa a nd e nt er ed the Uni te d S ta te s as l awful pe r man e ntr e s i de nt s . Aft e rmo v i ngt o the Uni t e d S t a tes , the Ki or ki s f am i l y s ett l ed i n the gr eat erChica go ar ea and, except fo r a fe w m em ber s who have re l oca ted to M i chi ga n, r e main i n I l l i no i s t o thi s da y . Ov e rthe p a st 14 y ea r s, a l lo fthe Ki o r k i s f ami l y mem be r s, e xc eptthe appe l l an t, ha ve s ucc ee ded i n obt ai ni ngful lU. S
. c i ti ze ns hi p. A fte r im m igr at in g t o th e U n ite d Sta te s, K iork is r emai ne d a l awfulpe r m an en t r es i den t i n g o o d s ta ndi ngN o. 10

- 1397 3

w ith th e law f or severa l y ears. Even tu all y, how ever, K i or ki s r an afoulo fthe l aw . In 200 3, he pl eaded gui l ty to unauthori zed poss es sio n ofa contr ol l ed substa nce an d w as se n te n c ed to tw o ye ar s o f p ro b a t i o n, w h ich it appears he co m ple ted witho ut i nci dent. Thi s co nvi cti on cam e ba ck to haunt K i or kis i n 200 7 when he appli ed f or n atur al i zati on. W hen r evi ew i ng Kio rk i s’ s a pp l i cati on, the Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty (DH S) di scove re d his pri or co nvi cti on a nd used i t a s g ro und s for denyi ng hi s a pp l i cati on. DH S al so i nsti tu te d r em ova l proce edi ngs against Kio rk i s a t thi s t i m e, se eking to re m ove hi m fro m the U ni ted S tat es pu rs uant to se cti on 237( a) (2)( B)( I ) o fthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct ( I N A). 8 U. S
. C. § 2 37 ( a) ( 2) ( B) ( I ) ( p rovi di ngf o rthe r emov alo fa l i en s wh o h av e be enc o nv i ct ed f o rv i o l at i ng con troll ed sub stan ce law s). I n M a r c h 2 0 0 8 , Ki o r k i s a p p e a r e d f o rh i s i n i t i a lh e a r i ng be f o r e th e i m m i g r at i o n c o ur t an d was g r an te d a n e xt e n sio n so th at h e c ou ld ob ta inrep re se n ta tio n . In Augus t 20 08 , Ki o r k i s f ai l ed to appea ra t th e se co nd h e a r i n ga n d th e c o u r to r d e r e d h i m i n a b s e nt i a r e mov e d. T h e c ou rtres c in d ed its ord er u p o n K iork is’s tim ely f i l i ngo fa mo t i o n t o r e o p e n a n d c o n t i n u e d th e h e a r i ng to J anuary20 09. A t this hea ring, Kio rk i s co nceded that he was re m ovabl e. I n February 2009 , Kio rk i s s ubm i tte d an appli cati on f oras yl um , w ith hol ding ofr em ova land prot ecti on unde rthe Co nv en ti o n Aga i ns t To r tu r e. In his as y l um ap p lica tio n, K iork is s ta te d th at ce rt ain as p ec ts of h is i denti ty m ade hi m a l ikely t ar geto ffuture perse cuti on

### 4 N o. 10

- 1397 at the hands o fH ezbo l l ah and th e Lebane se gov er nm ent. I n A pri l20 09, I m m i gr ati on J ud ge I pem a pre si ded o ver a m er i ts he ar i ngconc erni nghi s appl i ca ti o n. At the c o ncl usi on o fthe hear i ng, J ud ge I pem a d en ied al lo f Ki o r k i s’ s r eque st s an d o r der ed hi s r emov alt o Le ba no n. I n M a y 2 0 0 9 , Ki o r k i s a pp e a l e d J ud g e I pe ma’ s o r der t o th e B I A. Two m o nths l at erthe BI A det er m i ne d tha t th e tr an sc r i pt fr o m Ki o r k i s’ s he ar i ng co nt aine d too m an y i ndi sc ernibl e no ta ti o ns t o pe r m ita ppel l at e r ev i ew a nd r e ma n d e d th e c a s e f o rfu r th e rc o n s i de r a t i o n . In S e p t e mbe r2 00 9, I m m i g r at i o n J udg e Kes sl erpr es i ded over a s e c o n d me r i t s h e a r i n gr e g a r d i n gKi o r k i s ’ s cl a i ms . At the c onclusi on of the hea ring, J ud ge K ess l ergr anted K i or kis’ s r equest f orvo l untarydepartur e, but denie d allof K iorki s’s other req ue sts for r eli ef. K iorki s fi led a tim ely app eal from J ud ge K essler’s dec i si o n wi th th e B I A. In J a n u a r y 2 0 1 0 , a ft e rr e c e i v i ng bri efing fro m bo th par ti es, the BIA affi rm ed the deci si on below and dism issed the ap p eal. K iork is asks this cou rt to rev iew th e B IA ’s d ec isio n, alleg in g th at bo th th e B IA an d Ju d ge K essler erred in d en ying his requ ests for rel ief

.
I I . Discussi on Because the BI A di sm i sse d K i or ki s’ s a pp eali n a s i ngl em em bero pini on that agr eed with the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s a nal ysi s, the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s o pini on “ as su p p lem en te d by th e B oa rd ’s op in ion be c om es th e b as is ofr evi ew . ” R agh un a th a n v . Ho lder, 60 4 F
. 3d 371, 37 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10)
. Bef or e a nal yzing the m er i ts ofea ch ofN o. 10

- 1397 5 Ki o r k i s’ s cl ai m s, ho wever, we mustfi r stc o ns i derthe ex te n t t o w h ich w e h av e jur isd ict ion ov er th is ap p ea l. Ki o r k i s ha s co nc ede d tha t he i s r emovabl e fr o m the U ni ted S tat es du e t o hi s co m m i ssi on o fa drug- re l ate d c rim in al off e n se . W h en an ind ivid u al is re m ov ab le o n s u c h g r o u n d s , s e c t i o n 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) o f th e I NA seve re l y c urta i l s o ur ability to re vi ew the deci si ons of the i mm i g r a t i o n c o ur ta nd the BI A. 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) ( sta ti ng tha t “ no co urt shal lhave j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew any fi na lo r de ro fr e mov a la g a i ns ta n a l i e n who i s r em ov ab le b y re as on of h av in g c om m itt ed ” c er ta in c rim in al off en se s); see also A gu ila r-M e j i a v. Ho lder, 61 6 F. 3d 699, 7 03 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. W hi l e we ar e pr ohibi ted co m pl et ely fr o m que st i o ni ngthe f ac tu alde te r m i na ti o ns m ade b y e i th erb o dy, a s ubs eque ntpr ovi si o n o fthe I NA s t a t e s th a twe r e t a i n th e a u th o r i t y t o r e v i e w the ag en c y’ s dete rm i nati ons f orl ega ler ro rs . 8 U
. S. C. § 1 252 ( a) ( 2) ( D) ( sta ti ng tha t co urts r eta i n j uri sd icti on t o hear appeal s r ai si ng “c onst i tution al c l ai m s o r questi ons of law ”); s e eal so Khan v. Fi lip , 554 F.3d 681 , 688 (7th C ir. 20 09 ); LiFa ng H uan g v . M ukas ey , 5 34 F. 3d 618, 62 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. W e r ev i ew the l eg alde ter m i na ti o ns o fthe i m m i grati on co urt and the BI A de nov o, with defer ence to the a gencyi fthe i ssue i nvol ves an am b igu ou s s ecti on ofthe I NA o ra n i nt e r pr e t a t i o n o fa g e nc y r e g ul a ti ons. IN S v . Ag uirre-A gu irre, 526 U .S
. 41 5, 42 4 (1 99 9); Aue rv. Robb i ns , 519 U
. S. 452, 461-62 (1997 ). O n ap p eal, K iorkis all eges th at th e im m igrati on cou rt and the BIA er re d i n thr ee dist i nct ways: ( 1) theyf ai l ed t o ackn ow ledge his H ezbo ll ah -rel ated fear of futu re

### 6 N o. 10

- 1397 p ersecu tion claim s; (2) th ey ignor e d his fear of futu re per se cu ti o n c l ai m s th atwer e no t r el at ed to hi s r el i g i o n; an d ( 3) they ap p li ed the w rong ev id e n tiary stand ard w hen deter m i ni ng tha t he had not s how n a l i kel i hood o ffutur e per se cut i o n.
A. K i o r k i s ’ s He z b o l l a h - r e l a t e d C l a i ms K i or ki s’ s fi rs t a rgum ent o n appealco ntends th at J ud ge K ess l erand the BIA consi dered o nl y whet h er K i or ki s had a w el l

- f ounded fearo ffuture perse cuti on at the hands o fthe Lebanese gov er nm en t an d fai l ed to a ddr e s s h i s c l a i ms c o nc e r ningp e rs ec ut i o n a tthe h a nd s o fHe z b o l l a h. He a l s o a r g ue s tha ts e c t i o n 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C) of the I N A does not l i m i t our abi l i ty to re vi ew the d ec isio n s b elo w for th es e e rro rs as th ey co n st i t u t e lega l, ra therthan f actual, er ro rs . I n pri orcas es w here o ur j uri sdic ti on has bee n re str i cted by se cti on 1 252( a) ( 2) ( C), we have a cknowle dged “that the l i ne b etwee n l eg alque st i o ns

— w hi ch w e ca n re vi ew

— an d di sc r et i o na r y f ac tu a lde te r m i na ti o ns

— w hi ch w e ca nnot

— i s o ccasi onal l y di ffi cul t t o draw

. ” Khan v
. Filip , 55 4 F
. 3d at 688. I t i s cl eart hat we ar e no t p re ve n te d from rev iew in g “ an arg u m en t t h at n ec es s a r i ly i m pli cate s a cl ai m o f l ega ler ro r, such a s a n al l ega ti on th a tth e B I A f a i l e d t o e x e r c i s e d i s c r e t i o n a ta l lb y c o mp let ely i gnor i ng an ar gum ent. ” Igl esias v . M uk a sey, 54 0 F.3 d 52 8, 53 0-3 1 (7 th C i r . 200 8); s e ea l s o Ma n s o u rv . INS , 230 F. 3d 902, 90 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) (st ating tha t a genci es are requ ired to r e s p ond to the argu m en ts th at th ey areN o. 10

- 1397 7 p resen ted w ith). H ow ever, it i s also clear that w e are pr o hib i t e d fr o m r e v i e wi ng “ f a c t ua l de t e r mi na t i o ns o r th e m anne ri n whi chthe a g en cywei g hed th e v ar i o us f acto rs thati nfo rm the exer ci se o fdi scr eti on” orfro m h eari ng cl ai m s that m er el y a l l ege thatthe i m m i gr ati on cour t “ f ailed to applythe l aw . ” A guilar-M ej ia , 61 6 F
. 3d at 703; Khan , 554 F.3 d at68 9. In so far as K iork is is a l l e g i n g th a t th e i mmi g r a t i o n c o u r t a n d th e B I A c o mp l e t e l y f a i l e d t o c o ns i d e rh i s H e z b o l l a h

- r e l a t e d c l a i ms (as op p os ed t o c laim in g th at th es e b od ies ex er c ise d th eir di sc r et i o n, b utdi d s o i m pr o per l y ) , we fi nd tha t th e j uri sdic ti on- str i pp i ng pro vi si ons ofthe IN A ar e no t ap p lica b le a n d th at it is p ro p er for u s t o re vie w th e d ec is i o n s b e l o w. A fte r re vie w in g Ju d ge K es sle r’s an d th e B IA ’s d ec isio n s, w e fin d th at K iork is’s alleg at ion s c on c er n in g h is H ezbo l l ah- re l ate d cl ai m s a re notsupp or ted bythe re cor d. The BIA and the i m m i gr ati on cou rt s ar e e nti tl ed to a pr es um pti o n o fr egul ar i tyc o nc erni ng th ei rr es o l utio n of cla im s a n d a p p lica n ts ap p ea lin g fro m th eir d ec isi ons bearthe burden of est abl i shi ng tha t a n er ro r occ u rre d

. R ho a -Z a m o ra v . INS , 971 F.2d 26, 33-34 ( 7th Cir. 1992 )
. Fur ther, wh i l e w e have re m anded i m m i gr ati on c as es “b ec au se an ab se n c e o fa n aly sis leftu s u n c er ta in that a c l a i m h a d b e e n ful l y un de r s t o o d, ” we ha v e a l so re cogni zed that i t i s i m possibl e fori m m i gr ati on co urts to “ wri te a n e xe g es i s o n e ve r y c onte nt i o n a n a ppl i ca nt ra i ses . ” Do b r o t a v . INS , 195 F.3d 970 , 974 (7th C ir. 1999). A t the end ofthe m er i ts hear i ng, J ud ge K ess l ernot ed ev idenc e su bmi tt ed bythe pa r ti es di sc us sing“ o ng o i ng se c ta ri a n vio len c e a n d oth er p ro b lem s in L eb an on ,”

### 8 N o. 10

- 1397

T h e i mmi g r a t i o n c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d d r e s s th e s e c l a i ms 1 jointly is p articu la r l y u nd erstan d ab le giv en tha t K iork is ind icat ed in both his brie f a n d h is te st im ony that Hezb oll ah has infiltrated the L eb an ese g ov ern m en t an d effectiv ely con tro ls m an y of its d ecision s. i ncl ud i ng a U ni ted N ati ons re portin d icating tha t Lebano n’ s g o v e r nme ntg e ne r a l l y r e s pe c t s r e l i g i o us fr e e dom an d a U
. S
. S ta te De par tmentr epo r t di sc us singthe dangers p o s e d b y He z b o l l a h i n Le b a no n. S he a l s o di sc u ssed K i or ki s’ s hi sto rywith a nd pre sent fear s o f He z b o l l a h

. I t i s t r u e th a t J u d g e Ke s s l e r d i d n o te xpl i ci tly di st i ng ui shb etwee n Ki o r k i s’ s cl ai m s co ncer ni ng H ezbo l l ah and thos e invol vi ng t h e L ebanes e g o ve r nm en t when fi ndi ngtha t Ki o r k i s ha d no t demonst r at ed a wel l

- es tabl i sh ed fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n; how ever, this f ail ure doe s not con stitut e r eversible error. T he record estab li sh es th at Jud ge K essl e r u n d er- 1 sto od Ki o r k i s ’ s He z b o l l a h- r e l a t e d c l a i m, tha ts he c o ns i der ed the evi dence befor e herand th at she found itwas insuffi ci ent t o supp or t g ra nti ng Kio rk i s’ s r equest f or as ylu m . H en c e, it is c lea r th at th e im m igr at i on co u rtd id n o tc o mmi ta l e g a le r r o rb yi g n o r i n gK i o r k i s ’ s c l a i m.

B . Ki o r k i s ’ s No n - Re l i g i o u s F u t u r e P e r s e c u t i o n C l a i ms K i or ki s a l so ar gues that the deci si ons b elo w should be reve rs ed beca use J ud ge K ess l erand the BIA fa i l ed to c o ns i de rthr e e o fthe f o urs t a t ut o r i l y - pr o tec t e d g r o un ds that he i de nt i fi e d a s pr o v i di ng a b a s i s f o r hi s fe a r of p er secuti on cl ai m s. M or e s peci fi cal l y, Kio rk i s a l l ege s thatN o. 10

- 1397 9 the i m m i gr ati on co urt and the B IA di d not co nsi der w h et h er h is s ta tu s a s a n A ss yr ian , a W es te rn ize d / A m e rica ni ze d i ndi vi duala nd a mem be ro fa fam il y w i tha hi sto ryo fo pp osing H ezbo l l ah supp or te d a fi nd i ng tha t he po ss es se s a wel l

- f o unde d fea ro ffutur e per se cuti o n. H e con te n d s tha t the se om issi ons cons titute l egal errors an d , he n c e, th at th ey ca n p ro p er ly b e re vie w ed by th is cour t. Because Ki or kis ’ s s eco nd ar gum ent, l i ke hi s fi rs t, alle ge s th at t h e im m igr at ion c ou rta n d th e B IA co m p let ely i g n o r e d h i s cl ai ms , s e c t i o n 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) o fth e I NA d o e s n o tb a ru s f r o m r e v i e wi n gth e d e c i s i o n s b e l o w. I gl e s i as , 54 0 F
. 3d at 530- 31. W hi l e we cannotquesti on th e vali d ity ofJ ud ge K e s sler’s or the B I A ’s f actu al dete rm inations or th e w eight th at th ey attribu ted t o t he pa rti es’ ev i dence, a com ple te failu re to co nsi der K iork is’s arg u m en ts co n st itu te s g ro u n d s fo r re ve rs al. Id. ; Khan , 55 4 F
. 3d at 689. Ou r re vie w o fthe opi ni ons i ssued byJ ud ge K ess l er and the BI A l eave s us convinced thatKio rk i s’ s fear of fu tu re p er se c u t i o n c laim s w er e n otign or ed . W e b eg in by noting tha t Kio rk i s’ s cl ai m c oncerni ng hi s Assyr i an i denti ty w as not ra i sed bel ow and , as such, i s no t proper l y b ef or e thi s co urt. In the bri efthathe su b m i tte d to Ju d ge K es sle r p rior to h is m er its h ea rin g, K iork is st at ed that he had a wel l

- f o unde d fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n o n a c c o un to fh i s C hri s t i a ni t y, f a mi l y me mbe r s hi p, p olit ica l vie w s an d A m er ica n id en tit y. W h e n K i or kis appeal ed J ud ge K ess l er ’ s r uli n g to the BIA, he st ate d th a th e fe a r e d p e r s e c ut i o n o n thr e e g r o un ds

— “( 1) as a Ch ri sti an, ( 2) as o ne wh o i s pro - A m er i cani zed and pro-

### 10 N o. 10

- 1397 W est er n, and ( 3) as a m em bero fa fam ily w ho was pers ec u te d by H ez b olla h in t h e p as t.” B e c a u se K iork is di d n o t as se r t th athi s ethni ci typr o vi ded ani ndepend ent b asi s forfi nd i ng a fearo f fu tu re per secuti on unti lfi l i ngh i s b r i e f s wi th thi s c o ur t, the i mm i g r ati on c ou rt and the BIA did not er r by not add re ssing th is c laim

. Se e M e khi t av v. H o lder, 559 F.3d 725 , 729 (7th C ir. 2009 ). Gi ve n the no ve l tyofKi o r k i s’ s ethni ci ty
-ba se d c l ai m a nd h is c on c es sio n th at th e im m igr at ion co u rtan d th e B IA c on si dered hi s Chri sti ani ty-base d cl ai m , we are l eft t o deci de w hether these bodi es gave suffi ci ent c onsi derati o n t o hi s Am er i ca ni zed/pr o - W es te r n i den ti tya nd f ami l y mem be r sh i p c l ai m s. W he n del i ve r i nghe ro pi ni o n, Jud ge K ess l erdi scusse d K i or ki s’ s co ntenti ons that h is A m erican p oint of view and ot he r distinct ly W estern ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s wo u l d p u th i m a tr i s kf o rfu t u r e p e r s e cuti on, n ot ing that o ne o fhi s pri m ar y c l ai m s forr el i ef w as “r ela te d to th e fac t th at h e ha [d ] b ee n effe c tiv ely A m er ica n ize d .” Ju d ge K es sle r als o s ta te d t h at K iork is had test i fi ed that he was “a fra i d ofH ezbo l l ah bec ause of h i s unc l e fi g ht i nga g ains t th em, a nd hi s f athe rb eing shot ” a nd thathe fear ed “being to rtured byH ezbo l l ah because hi s f am i l y has f ou ght a gainst them

. ” Afte r acknowle dgi ng the se cl ai m s a nd r evi ew i ng the ev i dence that the par ti es had subm i tte d, she he l d that, [a] l th o ugh [ Ki o r k i s] c er ta i nl y ha s so m e co nc erns and al though the well

- f ounded fearstan d ar d i s a l ow st an dar d, I canno t co nc l ude

. . . tha t i t ha s be ende m o nstr ate d that there is
. . . [ a] te n perce nt chance orso th athe hi m se l fwoul d s ufferha r m tha t r i se s to theN o. 10

- 1397 11 level of persec ut ion, or thatany s u c h h arm he fears would beon ac co untof his m e m b e rs hip i n a par t i cu l ar s oc i al group . ( emphas i s adde d)

. Gi ve n a l lof t his, i t i s cl ea rtha t th e im m igrati o n c o urtcons idered K iorki s’s fear of futu re perse cuti on cl ai m s ba sed upon hi s Am er i cani zed/pr oW est er n and f am i l y g ro up i denti ti es, b u t f ound them unconvi nci ng and ente re d a j ud gm ent t h at dism i sse d both cl ai m s. W e ca uti on, h ow eve r, thato ur ho l ding shoul d not be i nt er pr et ed as a n un qua l i fi ed en do r se m en t o fthe i m m i gr ati on co urt’s d eci si on. A l though we r eco gni ze pract i call i m i tat i ons, J ud ge K ess l erm i ght ha ve discus se d e ac h o fKi o r k i s’ s cl ai m s i n greate rde ptha nd el abor ated o n the re aso ns wh y s he was rej ecting ea ch cl aim . S ecti on 1 252( a) ( 2) ( C)’ s l i m i tat i on o fo ur j uri sdic

ti on, however, i m pli es som e r est ri cti on o n the seve ri ty o fo u rc r i t i q u e o fh o w K i o r k i s ’ s so c i a lg r o u p c l a i ms w er e h an d l ed. To the exte nt such a cr i ti que re quir es re vi e wi ngthe f a c t ua lde t e r mi na t i o ns o fthe i mm i g r a t i on cour t, se cti on 1 252( a) ( 2) ( c) r est ri cts i ts sco pe.
C . E vid en tiary S tan d ard K i or ki s’ s finalar gum ent a l l ege s that the i m m i gr ati on co ur t an d the BI A appl i ed an i nc o r r ec t ev i den ti ary s ta ndard w hen deci ding w hether to gr ant hi s a syl um appli cati on. H e a rgues that the j ud gm ents en te red by bo th ad j u d ica tiv e b od ies sh ou ld b e r ev er se d be c au se th ey d id not w ei gh the to tal i ty ofhi s ci rcum sta nces, f ai l ed to co ns i dera l lof hi s futur e per se cut i o n c l ai m s i n the

### 12 N o. 10

- 1397

W e h a v e ju r i sd i c t i o n o v e r th e se is s u e s a s a n a p p e l l a n t ’s 2 all egati on that a court a p p lie d the i ncorrec t l egal s tandard falls squ are ly w ithin the “ qu estion s of law ” exce p tion to se ct io n 12 5 2 (a )(2)(C )’s ju ri sd ic tio n a l re str ic tio n s. Jos eph v. Hol der, 57 9 F .3d 82 7, 82 9 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ).

2- 28- 11 co nt ex t o fo ne a no th era nd i m pr o perlyf o cus ed o n a si ngl e pi ece ofev i dence. K iorki s’s argu m en t con cern ing th e ev iden tiary s t a nd a r ds a pp l i e d b y the i mm i g r a t i on cou r ti s n o ts up p orted by t h e record

. K iorki s has f ail ed to i d en tify 2 any par t o fJ u d ge K essl er ’ s o pini on that ind i cate s that she di d not wei gh t h e t ota l i ty ofKio rk i s’ s ci rcum sta nces or tha t s he c o ns i de r e d hi s c l a i ms i n i s o l a t i o n whe n dec i d i n gw h e th e rs h e s h o u l d g r a n th i s r e q u e s tf o ra s y l u m. W hile K iorki s su ggests that the im m igrati on cou rt’s heavyem phasi s o n hi s Chri sti ani ty-base d claim s a l l ow us to i nfe r that the c ourtm ade thes e e rrors , d oi ng so wo ul d c onf l i c twi th b o th thi s c i r c ui t ’ s p r a c t i c e a nd a p lain lan gu ag e re ad in g of Ju d ge K es sle r’s op in ion
. RhoaZ a m o ra , 97 1 F
. 2d at 33- 34.

I I I . Concl usio n F o r a l l o f th e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th ab o v e , th e r u l i n go ft he d ist ric t c ou rtis A FFI RMED .