FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 99 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Age nc y No. A0 88 -6 85 -7 12 SITA DEVI THAPA, Pet it io ne r, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 27 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Si taDevi Thap a, a ci ti zen of Ne pa l, cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s o n ato ur is t

vi saan d wi th in a y ear o f he r arri va l h adap pl ie d fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al ba se d o n h er al le ge d p ers ecu ti onby N ep al es e Ma oi stgu erri ll as . Thap a was de ni edrel ie f an d n ow p et it io ns forrev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’ (BIA’s) d eci si onde nyin g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d p et it io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (I NA). On ap pe al Thap a arg ue s t ha t t he BIA erre d i n a ffi rm in g t he Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ’s) adve rs e-cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n, wh ic h was th e b as is forde nyin g he r rel ie f. Thap a al so arg ue s t ha t t he IJ’s co nduc t atth e h eari ng de ni edhe r du e pr oc es s. W e d en y

Thap a’s pe ti ti on in pa rt a s wel l as to he r du e p ro ces s ar gu m en t 1 an d a s t o h er ar gu m en t tha t the BIA’s adve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng was n ot supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Bu t b ecau se we co nc lu de th atth e BIA fa il edto co ns id er co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e an d d en ie d re li ef b as edso le ly on i ts adve rs ecred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n, we al so gra ntThap a’s pe ti ti on in pa rt a ndrem an d. I.

Thapa also argues that the I J ’s deter mination that she was not entitled to asylum or 1 withholding of r emoval bec ause she had fa iled to establish past perse cution was not supported by substantial evidence . But the B IA did not addre ss the I J ’s past-pe rsec ution finding in its order, nor did it adopt the I J ’s finding . Consequently we do not conside r Thapa ’s ar gument on this point. Mohamme d v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 547 F.3d 1340, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 2008).

2Whe re the BIA is su es it s o wn o pi ni on , as i s t he cas e h ere, we re vi ew on ly

th atop in io n. Moh ammed v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 54 7 F .3d13 40 , 13 44 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). In t he ev en t tha t the BIA ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n, we wi ll als o rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t ha t ex te nt . Id . W e rev ie w any leg al co nc lu si on s m ad e by the BIA de no vo , bu t we m ay no t re ject i ts factua l fi nd in gs un le ss th ey are s o un supp orte d b y

ev id en ce tha t the reco rdco m pe ls it . Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . W e rev ie w con st itut io na l ch al le ng es de no vo . La

pa ixv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 60 5 F .3d11 38 , 11 43 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). II. W e fi rs t ad dr es s Th ap a’s du e-p ro ces s ch al le ng e. Inth e co nt ex t o f rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , du e p ro ces s i s s at is fie d wh enanali enis gi ve n n ot ic e an d arig htto be he ardbe fo re h er re m ov al . Ta ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e h av e al so sai d t ha t an ali en ’s rem ov al he ari ng m us t b e fu ll an d fa ir. Ib ra hi m v. INS , 82 1 F .2d15 47 , 15 50 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Thapaarg ue s t ha t the IJ c on du ct edhe r rem ov al he ari ng in anun ne ces sa ril y an ta go ni st ic an d i ns en si ti ve m an ne r. As a re su lt , Thap a co nt en ds , herrem ov al he ari ng was turne d i nt o aga m e o f “ go tc ha ,” an d t he IJ’s cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n is it se lf n otcred ib le . 3An IJ m ay “ in te rro ga te , exa m in e, an d c ro ss -ex am in e th e al ie n a ndany wit ne ss es .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(b )(1 ). Mo stof t he qu es ti on s an d c omm en ts th at Thapaco m

pl ai ns ab ou t wer e in st an ces wher e th e IJ was a tt em pt in g t o g etThap a to fo cu s h er an swe r orres po ndto a qu es ti on . W e h av e ap pr ov edsi m il ar ef fo rts in jud ic ia l co nt ex t, an d we c andi sc ern no reas on why du e p ro ces s wo ul d re qu ire th at we di sapp ro ve of t he m

he re. Se e Mo or e v. Uni te d Sta tes , 59 8 U.S. 4 39 , 44 2 (5 th Ci r. 19 79 ). 2 Thapaals o arg ue s tha t the IJ was sar cas ti c whe n h e as ke d h er wh ethe r he r pa ren ts “ ha d b een ki ll edy et .” Altho ug h i n any case th e IJ mig htha ve ph ras edth e qu es ti on so m ewh atm or e d el ic at el y , inth e co nt ex t o f th e p ro ceed in g i t i s n otcle ar th athe was b ei ng sar cas ti c. In de ed , Thap a’s te st im on y lea di ng up to th e IJ ’s qu es ti on was abo utde ath t hr eat s t ha t h adbe enm ad e to he r pa ren ts . Accor di ng ly, we fi ndno du e-p ro ces s v io la ti on . III. The INA all ows th e Att orne y Gene ral to gra ntasylu m

to an y refu ge e, th atis , so m eo ne who is un ab le or u nwi ll in g t o re tu rnto hi s h om e co un try “be cau se of pe rs ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on onacco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ) (“ [T] he 2 decisions of the United States Court of Appea ls for the [former ] Fifth Circuit . . . shall be binding as pre cede nt in the Eleventh Circuit . . . .”). 4na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n.” 8 U.S.C. § § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) , 11 58 (b )(1 )(A). Si m il arl y , to qu al ify for wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , an a li enm

us t es tabl is h t ha t upo n re tu rnto he r ho m e co un try it i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe r li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edbe cau se of h er ra ce, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 32 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). If anali en can no t m eetth e st an da rdforasylu m , sh e is us ua ll y un ab le to m eetth e “ m or e st rin ge nt ” st an da rdforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Id. at12 32 –3 3. Anali en ’s own te st im on y , if cr ed ib le , m ay be by its el f en ou gh to est ab li sh pa stpe rs ecu ti on . Ni ft al ie v v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 50 4 F .3d12 11 , 12 17 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). It i s, h owe ve r, up to th e tr ie r of

factto de te rm in e whe th er an ali enis cred ib le . 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 . Andin de edin so m e cas es , li ke he re, the ali enm ay be fou ndto be in cred ib le . To o ve rtu rnanadve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng , a pe ti ti on er m

us t s ho w th atth e BIA’s fi nd in g “ was no t s up po rte d b y ‘ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as ed on subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Und er thi s t es t, we “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof th atde ci si on .” Id . at 1 28 6. An d, l ik e an y ot he r fac tu al fin di ng , a cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n “ m ay

no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss th e rec or d c om pe ls it .” Id . at 1 28 7. 5Here t he BIA g av e sp eci fic an d c og en t re as on s fo r it s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il it y

de te rm in at io n b y

id en ti fy in g d is crep an ci es be twee n Th ap a’s te st im on y be fo re the IJ , herap pl ic at io n, an d h er i nt erv ie w with the asylu m off ic er. Andth os e 3 di sc rep an ci es are m or e th ansu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he BIA’s fi nd in g. Eve n tho ug h Th ap a’s po st -tr au m at ic st res s d is or de r co ul d p ro vi de a reas on ab le , an d e ve n p laus ib le , exp la na ti on forth e d is crep an ci es , itdo es no t co m pe l u s t o ov erturn t he BIA’s fi nd in g. Bu t al th ou gh we affi rm

th e BIA’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, we co nc lu de th atitwas n otby its el f a s uf fic ie ntba si s t o d en y

rel ie f. In t he ab se nc e o f co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, anadve rs e-cr ed ib il it y fin di ng canbe su ffi ci en t t o d en y rel ie f to anali en , Moh ammed , 54 7 F .3dat 1 34 5, b utwhen anap pl ic an t p ro du ces The REAL

ID Act, whic h applies to Thapa ’s claims, provides that: 3 Consideringthe totality

of the c ircumstance s, and all re levant fa ctors, a trier of fac t may base a cre dibilit y

deter mination on the demeanor , candor , or responsivene ss of the applica nt or witness, the inhere nt plausibili ty of the applicant’ s or witness’s ac count, the consistenc y betwee n the applica

nt’s or witness’s written a

nd oral stateme nts (whene ver ma de and whether or not under oath, and c onsideringthe circ umstances unde r which the statements wer e made ), the interna l consistency

of ea ch such state ment, the consistency of such state ments with other evide nce of

rec ord (includingthe re ports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any

inacc urac ies or fa lsehoods in such statements, without reg ard to whe ther a n inconsistency , inacc urac y , or fa lsehood g oes to the hear t of the applica

nt’s claim, or a

ny other re levant fa ctor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)( B) (iii). An alien’ s later testimony about fa cts not included in her a sylum application ca

n be conside red a

n inconsistency

in her stateme nts. See M ohammed, 547 F.3d at 1345–46; Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y G en. , 440 F.3d 1247, 1255–56 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 6co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, th e BIA m us t co ns id er i t t oo in de ci di ng whet he r to gra nt rel ie f. For

gu e , 40 1 F .3dat1 28 7. Here t he BIA d en ie d re li ef b as edso le ly on i ts adve rs e-cr ed ib il ity fin di ng . HadThap a n otpro vi de d a ny corro bo rat in g e vi de nc e th atwou ldhave be en su ffi ci en t t o d en y

rel ie f. Bu t s he di d, s o i t was n’t. Acco rd in gl y , we gra nthe r pe ti ti on in pa rt, v acat e th e BIA’s o pi ni on in pa rt, a ndrem an d t o the BIA so th atit m ay co ns id er wh ethe r sh e was en ti tl edto rel ie f in li gh t o f he r co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce d es pi te th e BIA’s ad ve rs e-cr ed ib il ity de te rm in at io n. DENIE D in pa rt, GRANTE D in pa rt, REMANDED.

7