FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JAN 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12708 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 97- 201- 911 V Y A C H E S L A V N I F T A L I E V , L Y U D M I L A N I F T A L I E V A , D M I T R O N I F T A L I E V , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 8, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: V y a c he s l a v N i f

t a l i e v, on be ha l f

of hi s w i f e , L y udm i l a , a nd hi s s on, D m i tr o,On November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 1 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The act create d a new Depa rtment of Homela

nd Se curity, a

bo lis he d th eI

NS, and trans ferre d it s f

unc tio nsto t

henew depa

rtment. B e c a

us ethi s c a sebe g an b e forethetrans fer, thi s opinion re fersto t

heI NS. The B IA af

firmed the IJ ’s deter

mination that Niftaliev’s application for asylum was 2 untimely , and Niftaliev does not appe al that dec ision nor does he a ppeal the de cision he wa s ineligible f

or re lief under

CAT. 2 pe t i t i ons thi s c ourtf

orr e vi e w of

the f i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) . T he B I A ’ s or de ra f f i rm e d the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( I J ) de ni a l of h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity Ac t( I NA ) . B e c au s e th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , we d e n y N if ta lie v ’s p e titio n . I . B a c kgr ound N i ft al i ev and h i s f

am i l y are ci t i ze ns of U krai ne and ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es i n F e brua ry 2001 on non- i m m i gr a ntvi s a s . T he yove r s t a y e d the i rvi s a s , a nd the I NS i s s u e d n o t i c e s t o ap p e a r , c h a r g i n g th e m wi th r e m o v ab i l i tyu n d e rI NA § 1 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . A f t e rc onc e di ng hi s e l i gi bi l i tyf orr e m ova l , N i f

t a l i e v s oughta s y l um a nd r e que s t e d w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . T he I Jf

ound N i f t a l i e v’ s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um un t i m el y and hear d t es t i m on y on the qu es t i on of w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der bo th IN A § 2 41 (b)( 3) and the C on vent i on agai nstT orture ( C A T ). 2 In hi s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um and i n t es t i m on y a tthe heari ng , N i ft al i ev3

a lle g e d th a t h e h a d s u f

f e r e d f r o m d is c r im in a tio n a n d h a r a s s m e n t b e c au s e o f h is m i xe d a nc e s try ( hi s m othe rw a s U kr a ni a n a nd hi s f a the rw a s A z e rba i

j a ni ) f r om chi l dh oo d u nt i l he l ef

tU krai ne i n 1 99 6. A s achi l d, t ea cher s and cl as sm at es be l i tt l e d hi s m i xe d e thni c i ty . D ur i ng hi s m i l i t a rys e rvi c e , N i f t a l i e v s t a t e d tha the a nd othe re thni c m i nor i t i e s w e r e s ubj e c tt o ha r a s s m e nta nd m i s tr e a tm e ntby s u p e r io r s a n d p e e r s in c lu d in g b e a tin g s , e th n ic s lu r s , a n d m e n ia l a s s ig n m e n ts . A ft erhi s m i l i t ary s ervi ce , N i ft al i ev m ov ed t o E st on i a t o att end T al l i n P ol yt ec hn i ca l I ns t i tut e w he r e , a c c or di ng t o hi s t e s t i m ony , he w a s a l s o s ubj e c tt o m i s tr e a tm e nt f r o m s tu d e n ts a n d f

a c u ltyb e c au s e o f

h is e th n ic ity . N if

ta lie v w a s e v e n tu a lly e x p e lle d f

r o m th e I n s titu te b e c au s e o f h is p r o te s ts a g a in s t h is m is tr e a tm e n t. N i f t a l i e v r e turne d t o U kr a i ne i n 1987 a nd ha d di f f i c ul tyi n s e c ur i ng em pl oym entbecause of hi s m i xed ethn i ci ty. A ft erthe di ss ol ut i on of the S ov i et U n io n , N if

ta lie v ’s d if

f ic u ltie s in c r e a s e d b e c au s e h e d o e s n o t s p e a ko rw r ite U kr a ni a n w e l l . H e di d, how e ve r , r e c e i ve ac orr e s ponde nc e de gr e e f r om the P o ly te c h n ic I n s titu te in K ie v a n d w a s ab le to f in d s o m e te m p o r a ryjo b s . In re spon se t o thi s c on st antdi sc ri m i nat i on , N i ft al i ev and three other i ndi vi dua l s f

orm e d a n unof

f i c i a l pol i t i c a l gr oup t o pr ot e s ta nd boy c ottthe 1994 el ec t i on s bec ause nei ther of the cand i dat es supp ort ed m i no ri ty r i gh t s. N i ft al i ev t est i fi ed th atth e g ro u p o rg an i zed ral l i es an d p ri n t ed an d d i stri b u t ed p am p h l et s, po st er s, and n ew spaper s. N i ft al i ev desc ri bed i n h i s a sy l um decl ar at i on that4

m em bers of a nat i on al i stparty, the U krani an N at i on al A ss em bl y- U krani an N a tio n a l S e lf

- D e f e n s e O r g a n iz a tio n ( U N A - U N S O ) b e a t h im f o rh is p r o te s ts in e a r ly1 9 9 5 , b u t h is c o m p la in ts to th e p o lic e w e n t u n h e e d e d . I n e a r l y 1995, L a vr e nty M a l a z oni y a , am e m be rof the pr ot e s tgr oup a nd t e l e vi s i on r e port e r , hi r e d N i f t a l i e v t o be hi s a s s i s t a nt . T oge the r , the yr e port e d on

“ go vernm entcorrup t i on and raci statt i tud es . ” T hatJune, N i ft al i ev w as sum m on ed t o the S e c ur i ty S e rvi c e s of U kr a i ne ( S B U ) w he r e he w a s i nt e rr oga t e d byM a j or Igor K on ov al ov abou thi s a ct i vi t i es w i th M al az on i ya . A l tho ug h the M aj or w as fr i endl y a tfi rs t , w hen N i ft al i ev re fuse d t o coo pera t e, he w as beat en and threa t ened nott o “ unde rm i ne hi s c ountry . ” A tthe he a r i ng, N i f t a l i e v t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe d e te n tio n la s te d b e tw e e n tw o a n d f o u rh o u r s . D es pi t e the threa t s, N i ft al i ev part i ci pat ed i n a prot es ti n Jul y 200 5 thatw as b r o k e n u p b y p o lic e . N if ta lie v w a s d e ta in e d b r ie f lyb yth e p o lic e a n d th e yto o kh is nam e. T he nextm on th, S B U agent s, i ncl ud i ng M aj or K on ov al ov , se ar ched N i ft al i ev’ s hou se and t oo k h i m i nt o cust od y w here he w as beat en and cal l ed an

“ A z e r i dog” e ve n though he t ol d the m i nf orm a t i on t o a voi d be i ng hurt . T he d e te n tio n a ls o la s te d b e tw e e n tw o a n d f o u rh o u r s . In O ct ob er19 95 , V adi m K ofm an, another m em ber of the prot es tgrou p, w as be a t e n by the U N A - U N S O a nd, a ga i n, the pol i c e di d nothi ng. T he gr oup pl a nne d a ra l l y t o p rot es tthe po l i ce ’ s i nact i on , bu ton the day of the ra l l y, the po l i ce ra i ded5

N i ft al i ev’ s hom e and foun d p i cketsi gn s and other prot es tm at er i al . T he po l i ce beat h im a n d d e m o lis h e d m u c h o f h is ap a rtm e n t. N i ft al i ev and h i s group fi l ed com pl ai nt s w i th the po l i ce and the A tt orney G e n e r a l b u t h e a r d n o th in g . I n D e c e m b e r , th e g r o u p d e c id e d to a tte m p t to s p e a kto the A tt orney G ener al di re ct l y butw er e app re hend ed by the S B U atthe A tt orney G e n e r a l’s o f

f ic e . N i ft al i ev t es t i fi ed thathe w as hel d b y the S B U for f i ft ee n d ay s duri ng w hi ch he w a s pl a c e d i n s ol i t a ry c onf i ne m e nt , be a t e n, gi ve n l i tt l e orno f ood, a nd th r e a te n e d . O n h is f

in a l d a y o f

d e te n tio n , M a

jo rK o n o v a lo v h e ld ap is to l to h is h e a d a n d s a id h e w a s s ic ko f s e e in g h is “u g lyA z e r i f a c e .” N if

ta lie v p le a d e d f

o rh is lif e a n d p r o m is e d to le a v e th e c o u n tryif h e w a s a llo w e d to liv e . A ft erspendi ng tw o m on ths i n the ho spi t al re coveri ng fr om i nj uri es suff er ed i n d et ent i on , N i ft al i ev and h i s f am i l y e m i grat ed fr om U krai ne t o A rgent i na. T hey l i ve d the r e f

ora l m os tf

i ve y e a r s be f

or e e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s . A l though N i f t a l i e v ga i ne d pe rm a ne ntr e s i de nc yi n A r ge nt i na , he l e f tthe c ountryf

orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s a f

t e rc l a i m i ng t o ha ve be e n appr oa c he d bya n S B U a ge nts e e ki ng in f o rm a tio n ab o u t th e c h e m ic a l p la n t w h e r e N if ta lie v w o rk e d . N if

ta lie v in itia lly r e f u s e d to h e lp , b u t th e a g e n t in f o rm e d N if

ta lie v th a t h is p a r e n ts , w h o s till liv e d in U k r a in e , w o u ld b e h a rm e d if N if ta lie v d id n o t c o o p e r a te . H e th e n a g r e e d to h e lp bu ti nst ea d w enti nt o h i di ng i n A rgent i na and sub se qu ent l y e nt er ed the U ni t ed6

S ta te s . H is p a r e n ts d o n o t ap p e a rto h a v e b e e n h a rm e d . A l tho ug h N i ft al i ev prov i ded ext ensi ve do cum ent at i on re gardi ng the general st atus of hu m an ri gh t s i n U krai ne and the pl i gh tof ethn i c m i no ri t i es i n p art i cul ar , he di d n otoffe r any corr ob orat i ng evi dence re gardi ng any of hi s pol i t i ca l ac t i vi t i es o rin s ta n c e s o f

d e te n tio n a n d p h y s ic a l ab u s e . In hi s ora l deci si on , the IJdeni ed N i ft al i ev’ s app l i ca t i on despi t e ac kn ow l edgi ng the consi st encyof N i ft al i ev’ s t es t i m on y w i th h i s w ri tt en de c l a r a t i on a nd the f

a c ttha tthe c r os s - e xa m i na t i on “ di d notr e ve a l a ny thi ng m a te r ia l o rp e rtin e n t e n o u g h th a t w o u ld le a d m e to c o n c lu d e th a t [ N if ta lie v ] w o u ld h a v e b e e n [ s ic ] a n in c r e d ib le w itn e s s .” T h e I Ja ls o n o te d th a t th e S ta te D ep artm en t ’ s C o u n try R ep o rt s b ro ad l y su p p o rt ed th e cl ai m s o f p o l i ce ab u se a ga i ns te thni c m i nor i t i e s butthe I Jw a s c a r e f ul t o s t a t e tha tthe abus e s i n the R e p o rts d id n o t n e c e s s a r ilya m o u n t to p e r s e c u tio n . T h e I Jc o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r , th a t N if ta lie v d id n o t m e e t h is b u r d e n o f p r o o f to e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l b e c au s e th e la c ko f d e ta il in h is t es t i m on y and l ac k o f docum ent ary c orrobo ra t i on . T he IJal so concl ud ed that N i f t a l i e v ha d notbe e n t ortur e d e ve n a s s um i ng tha the ha d be e n de ni e d f ood f or fi ft ee n d ay s w hi l e i n d et ent i on and thati tw as no tm ore l i kel y than n otthat N if ta lie v w o u ldb e s u b

je c t to p e r s e c u tio n s h o u ld h e r e tu rn to U k r a in e . T he B IA di sm i ss ed N i ft al i ev’ s app ea l i n a tw o p ar agraph order. T he B IA7

f ound no “ r e ve r s i bl e e rr or ” r e ga r di ng the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe a s y l um appl i c a t i on w as un t i m el y and foun d n o “ cl ear e rr or” i n the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatN i ft al i ev f a ile d to m e e t h is b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t it w a s m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e w o u ld s u f f e rp e r s e c u t i o n i n Ukr a i n e . T h e B I A n o t e d th a tp e r s e c u t i o n u n d e rth e I NA

“ do es no tencom pass al l tre atm entthatsoci ety r egar ds as un fa i r, un j ust , or even un l aw ful or un const i tut i on al . ” ( Q uo t i ng M att erof V -T -S , 21 I& N D ec . 79 2 (B IA 1 9 9 7 ) ) . II . S t andard of R evi ew A lth o u g h th e B I A d id n o t e x p r e s s lya d o p t th e I J ’s o p in io n , th e B I A d id af fi rm the IJ ’ s dec i si on w i tho utanal ys i s and so w e r evi ew bo th the B IA ’ s order a n d th e I J ’s d e te rm in a tio n . S e e A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) ( “In so fa r a s th e B o ar d ad o p ts th e I J’s r ea so n in g , w e w il l rev iew th e I J’s deci si on as w el l . ”) . W e r evi ew the B IA ’ s l egal concl usi on s de nov o. D -M uh um ed v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 814. 817 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W e do notr e vi e w the f a c tua l r e c or d a ne w ; r a the r , w e a r e obl i ga t e d t o r e vi e w f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons u n d e rth e d e f

e r e n tia l s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e te s t a n d w ill a f f irm its d e c is io n “if

it is supp ort ed by re as on abl e, subst ant i al , and p robat i ve evi dence on the re cord c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” I d. a t817- 18 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3 d a t1 2 8 3 - 8 4 ) ( q u o t a t i o n s o m i tt e d ) . “ Un d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t , we8

vi e w the r e c or d e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the a ge nc y ’ s de c i s i on a nd dr a w a l l r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof tha tde c i s i on. ” A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3d 1022, 1027 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ T o r e ve r s e the I J ’ s f a c tf i ndi ngs , w e m us tf

i nd th at th e r ec o rd n o t o n ly su p p o rts r ev er sa l, b u t co m p els it. ” M en d o za v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n ., 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . II I. T he i ss ue i n thi s c as e i s w hether the evi dence com pel s the concl usi on that B I A e rr e d in u p h o ld in g th e I J ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t N if ta lie v d id n o t m e e t h is s ta tu to ry b u r d e n u n d e rI N A § 2 4 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . T o b e e n title d to w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a n a l i e n “ m us ts how tha thi s l i f e orf r e e dom w oul d be threa t ened on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on. ” S a nc he z v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 392 F . 3d 434, 437 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). “ A n al i en b ears th e b u rd en o f d em o n strat i n g th ath e m o re-l i k el yth a n - n o t w o u ld b e p e r s e c u te d o rto rtu r e d u p o n h is r e tu rn to th e c o u n tryin q u e s tio n .” I d . A n appl i c a ntf

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l m a ys a t i s f

yhi s bur de n i n e i the rof tw o w a y s . T a n v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . F ir s t, a n a l i e n m a y e s t abl i s h “ pa s tpe r s e c ut i on . . . ba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” I d. (c i t i ng M endo zav. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 32 7 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 )) . If an al i en est ab l i sh es “ p astp ersecu t i o n , ” a reb u tt ab l e p resu m p t i o n ari ses th ath e h as a9

“w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n ,” a n d th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e D H S to s how tha tthe c ondi t i ons of the c ountryha ve c ha nge d orthe a l i e n c oul d a voi d a f u tu r e th r e a t th r o u g h r e lo c a tio n . I d . S ec on d, an al i en i s e nt i t l ed t o w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al i f he e st abl i shes “ that i s i tm or e l i ke l y tha n nottha t[ he ] w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d on a c c ountof r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, orpol i t i c a l opi ni on upon r e m o v a l to th a t c o u n try .” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . “A n a lie n c a n n o t d e m o n s tr a te th at[h e] m o re-l i k el y-th an -n o tw o u l d b e p ersecu t ed o n a p ro t ect ed g ro u n d i f th e [IJ] fi n d s th atth e al i en co u l d av o i d a fu tu re th reatb y rel o cat i n g t o an o th er p arto f [h i s] coun try . ” T an, 44 6 F . 3d at13 75 . T he w el l -f ou nd ed fe ari nq ui rycont ai ns bo th an obj e c t i ve a nd s ubj e c t i ve c om pone nt ; the pe t i t i one rm us tbe ge nui ne l ya f r a i d a nd th a t f e a rm u s t b e o b

je c tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . A l N a jja r , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 . F u rth e rm o r e , it is th e p e titio n e r ’s b u r d e n to p r e s e n t “s p e c if ic , d e ta ile d f

a c ts show i ng a goo d rea son t o fear that[he] w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on . ” I d. at 12 87 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on , em ph as i s, and ci t at i on om i tt ed). Al th o u g h th e I NA d o e s n o te x p r e s s l yd e f i n e “ p e r s e c u t i o n , ” s e e I NA § 10 1(a) (42), 8 U . S . C . § 1 10 1(a) (42), thi s c ou rthas hel d thatpers ec ut i on i s “ an e xtr e m e c onc e pt , r e qui r i ng m or e tha n af e w i s ol a t e d i ns t a nc e s of ve rba l ha r a s s m e nt or i nt i m i dat i on [. ] ” S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 31 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) .10

T he B IA has def

i ned p er se cut i on t o m ean “ a threa tt o the l i fe or fr ee do m of, or the i nfl i ct i on of suff

er i ng or harm up on , tho se w ho di ff eri n a w ayre garded as of f e ns i ve . ” M a tt e rof

A c os t a , 19 I & N D e c . 211, 222 ( B I A 1985) . H ow e ve r , the B IA al so has s t at ed that“ pers ec ut i on [does] no tencom pass al l tre atm entthat s o c i e ty r e g a r d s a s u n f

a i r , u n j u s t , o re v e n u n l a wf

u l o ru n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . ” I n r e V- TS , 2 1 I & N D e c . 7 9 2 , 7 9 8 ( B I A 1 9 9 7 ) . A pe t i t i one r ’ s c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony c a n be s uf f i c i e ntt o m e e thi s bur de n of p r o o f w ith o u t c o rr o b o r a tio n . 8 C .F .R . § § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( b ) ; T a n , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 6 . A l though the I Jf

ound N i f t a l i e v’ s t e s t i m ony t o be c ons i s t e ntw i th hi s appl i c a t i on a n d d e c la r a tio n , h e h e ld th a t N if ta lie v ’s te s tim o n yw a s in s u f f ic ie n tlyd e ta ile d to m ee t h is b u rd en o f p ro o f. T h e I J d o es n o t ex p li citl y d isco u n t N iftali ev ’s cr edi bi l i ty, bu the re peat edl y r ef er s t o the l ac k o f any supp ort i ng evi dence r e ga r di ng the e xi s t e nc e of N i f t a l i e v’ s s m a l l pol i t i c a l gr oup, the de t e nt i ons , ora ny m e di c a l tr e a tm e ntr e c e i ve d a f t e rthe a l l e ge d m i s tr e a tm e nt . T he I J ’ s e m pha s i s on the abse nce of docum ent at i on supp ort i ng N i ft al i ev’ s t es t i m on y s ug gest s thatthe IJ di d notf ul l y c r e di tN i f

t a l i e v’ s t e s t i m ony . B uta n e xpl i c i tc r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on w a s n o t m a d e . O ur re vi ew of the fa ctual re cord i s s i gn i fi cant l y ham pere d w hen the IJdo es notm a ke ac r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. S e e Y a ng v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 418 F . 3d 1198, 1201 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . B e c aus e , a s i n Y a ng, the I J ’ s a na l y s i s f oc us e d on theTwo unpublished opinions of this court, although not binding pre cedent, arepersua sive 3 here . In Gebremarian v. U.S. Att’y Gen., this court he ld that a fourte en-da y detention “suff

ere d under hos til ec ondition s”did no t riseto t

heleve l of

pers e cuti on . 1 26F e d. Appx. 9 34 , 9 36(1 1th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). And in Ar beleaz v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., this court he ld that being threatened, be aten, a

nd actually

shot in the leg , while serious, did not constitute perse cution. 181 Fe d. Appx. 926 (11th C ir. 2006) (unpublished) . 11 i ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , w e w i l l a s s um e tha ta nyi m pl i c i tc r e di bi l i tyde c i s i on w a s n o t d is p o s itiv e to th e o u tc o m e o f th e c a s e . I d . O urs t a nda r d of

r e vi e w gove rns ourr e a di ng of the r e c or d i n thi s c a s e . S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 448 F . 3d 1229, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . W e do nots ubs t i tut e our anal ys i s of the evi dence for the IJ ’ s buti nst ea d l oo k t o see i f the IJ ’ s dec i si on w as re as on abl e and base d o n sub st ant i al evi dence. Id . T he st andard go verni ng w hatconst i tut es pastpers ec ut i on i s hi gh . T hi s c ou rt ha s he l d tha tde t e nt i ons ba s e d on apr ot e c t e d gr ound do notne c e s s a r i l yr i s e t o the l evel of pers ec ut i on . S ee Z heng v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 45 1 F . 3d 12 87 (11th C i r. 2006) ( “ A l though unde rc e rt a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s de t e nt i on m a yr i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on, Z he ng’ s f

i ve - da y de t e nt i on dur i ng w hi c h he w a s notha rm e d doe s not com pel the c onc l us i on tha the e xpe r i e nc e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on. ” ( e m pha s i s i n the ori gi nal )) . 3 O ther c i rc ui t s a l so have hel d thatca se s i nv ol vi ng det ent i on s do n otcom pel a c on traryfi nd i ng of pers ec ut i on . S ee D andan v . A shcr oft , 33 9 F . 3d 56 7 (7th C i r. 2003) ( thr e e - da y de t e nt i on w he r e s us pe c tw a s de ni e d f ood a nd w a s gi ve n a12

“ s w ol l e n” f

a c e di d notc om pe l af

i ndi ng of pe r s e c ut i on) ; F e s s e hav. A s hc r of t , 333 F . 3d 13 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha ts e ve r a l tw e nty - f ourhourde t e nt i ons w e r e not s uf f i c i e ntt o c ounta s pe r s e c ut i on) ; N e l s on v. I N S , 232 F . 3d 258 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) (des cr i bi ng m ul t i pl e c as es ac ross the ci rc ui t s w here det ent i on s w i th b ea t i ng s w er e n o t f o u n d to b e p a s t p e r s e c u tio n ) . U nd erou r c as e l aw , on l y N i ft al i ev’ s l as tdet ent i on even approaches the l evel of m i stre atm entthatcan fai rl y be c hara ct er i ze d as pas tpers ec ut i on . T he other i nci dent s, w hi l e unfortun at e, ar e bes tchar ac t er i ze d as m er e har as sm ent . S ee S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231. A nd a l though N i f t a l i e v c e rt a i nl ys uf

f e r e d dur i ng the f if te e n - d a y d e te n tio n , th e f a c ts d o n o t com

pel ac o n c lu s io n o f

p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . I V . C onc l us i on T he re cord i n thi s c as e does notcom pel a f i nd i ng of pastpers ec ut i on gi ven th e d eferen t i al st an d ard o f rev i ew an d th e st an d ard o f p ro o f n ecessary to sh o w p ast pers ec ut i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e DE NY N if ta lie v ’s p e titio n .