The Honor able My ron H
. Bright, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appe als for * the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0716n.06 Filed: Nove mber 20, 2008 No. 07-4469 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MA R GER I TA MARTI

NI , GJ ONETO M A R T IN I, A

N T O N E T A M A R T IN I, an d N IK O LE T A M A R T IN I, P e ti ti one r s,
v. MI CHAEL

B. MUK ASEY, United State s A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION FOR REVI EW OF A N ORDER OF THE BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON A P P E A LS
O P I N I O N

Be for e : M OORE, G RI F F IN , a nd BR IG HT, Ci r c uitJudg e s. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioners, Marg erita Ma rtini (“Mar

tini”) and her three children, G

joneto Martini (“G

joneto”), A ntoneta Mar

tini, and Nikol et a Mar

tini (collec tively

“the Ma rtinis” ), s ee krevie w of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals’ ( “B I A”) order aff irming the immigration judge’ s (“I J ”) de nial of their a pplications for a sy lum and withholding of
remova l. The Mar

tinis arg ue that the I J abandone d her ne utral role w hen questioning Martini and that the BI A abused its discretion when it aff irmed t he I J ’s decision to deny the Martinis’ petition for a sy lum a

nd withholding of remova l on the g rounds that Martini was not cr edible. F or the re asonsThe facts described in this section are draw n from testimony and evide nce pr esente d by the 1 Martinis. Relevant inconsistencie s are noted. At the me ri ts he ari ng , the g ov e rnme nt s tip ulate d th a t if Mart ini we re to t e sti fy

a bo ut e ve nts 2 p ri o r t o t he fa ll of the Communis t reg ime in Albania, her testimony

would be consistent with the information containe d in her a pplication. 2 discussed below, w e DENY the petition for revie w of the B I A’s orde r deny ing the Martinis asylum
and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. I. BACKG ROUND 1 M arti n i, an A lb an ia

n c it iz e n , w a s b o r

n in K o s an , A lb an ia in 1 9 6 6
. Sh e ma r ried Ar ben Mart ini in 19 86 , and

the c ou ple ha s th re e c hil dr e n. B oth he r f a mil y and he r h us ba nd ’s fa mil y op po se d Co mmunis t r

ule in A lba

nia and , a s a re su lt, su ff

e re d a ssa ssi natio n atte mpt s, imp ri so nme nt, and other forms of pe rsec ution while the Commun i s t s co n trolled the country . Martini and her hu sb and we re a c tiv e in t

he De moc ratic Part

y (“ DP” ) a nd pa rt ic ipate d in

de mon str a tio ns and

pr ote sts
a g a ins t th e Com mun ist

g ov e rnme nt. 2 Fr om 1992 to 1997, when the DP controlled the g overnme nt, the M ar t ini family was not pe rs e c ute d. Th e e ve nts su pp or tin g the Ma

rt ini s’ pe tit ion fo r a sylum be g an a ft e r t he Soc ia lis t Part

y (“SP”), a coalition party that evolved from the former Communi st Par ty , g ained powe r. Ac cording to Martini’s statement ac company ing he r family ’s application for asylum and withh o l ding of
remova l, the Martinis’ problems beg an with threatening phone ca lls and letters. Martini’s statement
asser ts that the se threats “ beca me more concr ete” when, on J une 20, 1999, Communists attempted to kill her husband by shooting at his car . J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 382 (Martini Stmt . at 2); J.A.
a t 20 0- 05 (H r’ g Tr . at 73 -7 8) . A t he r m e ri ts h e ari ng , M art ini te sti fi e d th a t si x mont hs be fo re thi sAt the hea ring , Martini identified a d o cu m ent as the le tter that she ha d notarized g iving 3 permission for he r husband to take her son acr oss the Bulg aria n border . J .A. at 226-234 ( Hr’gTr. at 99-107). Howeve r, as the I J noted, the docume nt that she identified re fer s to events (i.e. he r son’s tr ip t o I ta ly

) that, a c c or din g to Mart ini ’s na rr a tiv e , oc c ur

re d a ft e r he r s on

and hu sb and tr ie d to g o to Bulg aria
. Id. ; J .A. at 439 (N otarial Stmt.). 3 shooting, the ne phew of the head of t he S P tried t o kill her husband by forc ing his c ar of

f the roa d. J .A. at 200-05 ( Hr’gTr. at 73- 78). Duringthis period her husba nd was a lso beaten by

the police. As a re sult of these eve nts, Martini’s husband left Albania for the United States on J une 29, 1999. J .A. at 207-08 ( Hr’gTr. at 80- 81). Mar tini testi fied th at shortly

afte r her husband left Albania, two attempts were ma de t o k idnap her son, Gjoneto. The f

irst time, four day s after

her hu sb and le ft the c ountr

y , some me n ap pr oa c he d Gjo ne to an d told him that th e y we re fr ie nd s o f h is fathe r and that they

wanted to g ive him a ri d e. Gjoneto ra n awa y from these men and wa s not harme d. The sec ond time, a Muslim-Comm unist man that Martini knew a pproac hed her

while she
was wa lking home w ith Gjone to a nd told her that he w as g oing to “ repla ce” her husba nd and kidnap he r s on . J.A . at 21 0- 11 (H r’ g Tr . at 83 -8 4) . G jon e to a lso te sti fi e d r e g ard ingthe se e ve nts
. Mart ini te sti fi e d that, in re sp on se to the se inc ide nts , he r hu sb and re tur ne d to Al ba

nia on July 9, 1999 to try

to ge t Gjoneto out of Albania. J.A. at 220 (Hr’ g Tr. at 93) . Be cause the Amer ican embassy in Albania wa s closed at the time, the Martinis tried to g et their son a visa in B ulga ria. The first time her husba

nd and son tried to g o to Bulg aria , the borde r off icials would not let them leave Albania without per

mission from the child’s mother. Martini executed a letter g iving he r per mission fo r G jon e to t o le a ve Al ba

nia , and Gj on e to and he r h

us ba nd we nt t o B ulg ari a

bu t w e re un a

ble to 3 obtain a visa. F ollowing this failure , Martini and her husband sent Gjone to out of Albania with a friend, hopingthat the frie n d co u ld ge t their son to the United States. Be cause Gjoneto had noFr om Febr uary 2000 on, Martini’s husband re mained in the United States. He applied for 4 asylum separately

from his wife a

nd children. An I J found Arbe n Martini not cre dible and denie d his petition for asylum. Ma rti ni v . A sh c ro ft , 1 0 4 F
. A p p ’ x 5 6 2 , 5 6 3 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. T h e B IA aff irmed, and this cour

t denied his petition for re view. Id. The M arti n is s u

b mi tt e d a s w o r ns tate me n t f

r o m a w o ma nin A lb an ia w h o kn e w a

bout 5 Martini’s ra

pe. T h is document states that “ma sked civilians” a ssaulted Martini and doe s not mention the police. J.A. at 375 (Z ace Stmt .). When asked a bout this di scre pancy , Martini testified that she had bee n rape d by

police and

civilians. J .A. at 330 (H r’gTr. at 203)
. At the Martinis’ hear ing, the g overnme nt pointed out that the passport Martini used to enter 6 the Un ite d Stat e s wa s issu e d b e fo re he r r a pe bu t ha d n o s tamps on

it i nd ic a tin g e ntr

y int o Y ug os lavia even thoug h Martini testified that her passport had been stamped when she left Alba nia for me dical treatment. J .A. at 275-81 ( Hr’gTr. 148-54)
. M ar t i ni expl ained that she had bee n issued a new pa ssp or t be c a us e the pe op le wh o b ro ug ht h e r t o A me ri ca said sh e ne e de d o ne and that he r o ld passport wa s still in Albania. Id. 4 documentation, he w as stopped in Italy and held in a cente r for nine months before he wa s returne d to A lbania on J uly 26, 2000. Gjoneto also testified re g ardingthe attempts to g et him out of Albania. I n Fe bruar

y 2000, Martini’s husband re turned to the United States. The fina l persec ution 4 that Martini descr ibed was he r ra pe on Oc tober 16, 2000. Mar tini testi fied that a s she was le aving a DP Women’s Union meeting , a police va n stopped her. O ff

i ce rs got out, called her

and her husband “r otten Democr at[s] ,” and f orce d her into the va

n with a g un. J .A. at 242-43 ( Hr’gTr. at 115-16). She testified that the masked off icer s who took her c ontinued to touch and insult her once 5 she wa s in the van. These men took h er t o t h e p o l i ce station where she wa s rape d by four or five
me n o ve r t

he c ours e of a fe w hours . Ma rt ini te sti fi e d th a t a ft e r t

his vio le nt e ve nt, sh e mov e d in wi th her r elatives and did not g o out in public until she came t o the Unit ed S tates. Martini first testified that sh e d i d n o t s ee a

phy sician in Albania a fter she was ra ped, but when she was shown a repor t from an A lbanian doctor , Martini admitted that she s aw a criminology doctor in Albania

afte r the assault, but was late r trea ted in Yug oslavia only
. J .A. at 254-66 ( Hr ’g T r. 127-39). On r edire ct 6At this master ca lendar hear ing, the I J waived the require ment that petitions for a sy lum be 7 fi le d w ith in o ne y e ar of arri val be c a us e of a c ha ng e in t he a pp lic a tio ns and

an e rr or by the c le rk s’ of fi c e . T he B I A tre a te d th is m a tt er as timel y , a nd ne ith e r p art

y ra ise s any

c la ims pe rt a ini ngto t i m e l i n e s s o na

p p e a l
. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e t r e a tt h e p e t i t i o nf o r a s yl u m a s t i m e l y. 5 e xami na tio n, Mart ini state d that a s a re su lt of the ra pe sh e be c a me pr e g na

nt and ha d an a

bo rt ion in Yug oslavia. She testified t hat s he had not told any one about this preg nancy or its termination befor e this redirec t examination. J .A. at 309 (H r’gTr. at 182:18-25)
. On Ap ri l 30 , 2 00 1, Martin i and he r t hr e e c hil dr e n le ft

Al ba nia . A ft e r s pe nd inga

nig ht i n Yu g os lavia , th e fa

mil y arr ive d in

the Un ite d St a te s o n M ay 1, 20 01 . T he Ma

rtinis l a c ke d v a lid documents, and the I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”), the a g ency

responsible for immigration m at ters at the time the Ma rtinis arrived in the U nited States, started re moval proce eding s ag ainst them. See 8 U .S. C. § 11 82 (a )( 7) (A )( i) . M art ini a pp e are d b e fo re an I J on A ug us t 28, 2002, and conc eded r emovability
. A merits hea ring was held on Dec ember 8, 2005. Martini 7 te sti fi e d r e g ard ing th e even ts d e sc ri be d a bo ve , a nd sh e tol d th e I J tha t sh e wa s a fr a id t o r e tur n to Al ba nia be c a us e the pe op le wh o h a d thre a te ne d a nd hurt he r f a mil y we re sti ll a liv e and

po we rf ul. On Dec ember

8, 2005, the I J issued an ora l decision deny ing the Martinis as y lum and wi thh old ing of

r e m o v a l o nth e g r o u n d s t h a tM art i n i ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s n o tc r e d i b l e . I na d d i t i o nto detailing a number

of spec ific inconsistencie s, the I J found that the “ complete lac k of cor roborating
e v i d e n ce ” “f

u rt h er u n d er m i n ed ” Ma rt i n i ’s cr ed i b i l i t y . J
. A. at 6 6 (IJ De ci s i o n at 3 6 ). T h e IJ
e xpla ine d th a t sh e wo uld

have e xpe c te d te sti mony fr om Ma rt ini ’s hu sb and and fr om s ome of the ir fa mil y me mbe rs wh o h a d o ste ns ibl y be e n g ra nte d a sylum

in t he Un ite d St a te s. The I J also f

o un d th a t “ th e r e h a s b e e na

s u f f ic ie n t c h an g e in

c o un tr y c o n d it io n s s u c h that even if this Co u rt w e r e to f in d th a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t e s ta

b li s h e d p a s t p e r s e c u ti o n( w h ic h it d o e s n ot6

beca use it does not find the re spondent is cre dible) that the re spondent does not have a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution.” J .A. at 71 (I J Dec ision at 41). The I J highlig hted the fa ct that Martini’s hu sb and ha d r e tur ne d t o A lba

nia a ft e r r e a c hin g the Un ite d St a te s a nd that Ma rt ini ha d r e tur

ne d to Albania f ro m Yugoslavia. F inally , the I J found that the Mar tinis had not shown that relocation within Albania was impossible. The Mar tinis appealed the I J ’s denial of asylum and withholding of r emoval to the B I A. The Martinis argued that the I J had depr ived them of due proce ss by rig orously

questioning Ma

rtini and thus acti ng more a s a “se cond prose cutor” than an “ impartial adjudicator.” J.A. at 108 (Resp. Br
. a t 9) . T he y

a lso argue d th a t Ma

rt ini wa s c re dib le and

that th e y ha d p re se nte d en ou g h e vid e nc e to entitle them to a sy lum. Finally , the Martinis asser ted that the I J had err oneously reli ed “o n her adver se cr edibility

f indingand the de nial of [the Martinis’] asy lum claim” when de ny ing the family ’s withholding of r emoval and C AT claims. J .A. at 117-18 ( Resp. Br . at 18-19). O n November 5, 2007, the B I A issued an opinion adopting and affirming the I J ’s decision with some additions. The BIA found that the I J ’s “a dverse cre dibilit y finding is sufficiently

supported by the re cord.” J .A. at 7- 8 ( B I A O rd e r) . The B I A expl a ine d it s a ff ir ma tio n o f t

he I J’s a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty

fi nd inga s f

oll ow s: The Immigration J udg e identified va rious discrepa

ncies in the lea d responde nt’s te sti mony wh ic h g o to the he art

of he r cl aim . T he re sp on de nt t e sti fi e d th a t in October of 2000, she wa s detained by police and rape d; however , a docume nt submitt ed on h er b ehalf indicates that she w as stopped and r aped by masked civilians. The respondent also testified, t hat af ter he r ra pe, she did not see k medical tr e a tme nt i n A lba

nia . H ow ever , s he ha s su bmi tte d a do c ume nt f

ro m a do c tor in Albania stating that s he wa s prese nted in the clinic due to the violenc e committed ag ainst her at the police st at i on. I n addition, the witness testified that Mr. Pjeter Abnori knew ab o ut the responde nt’s rape ; however , in a document Mr. A bnori submitt ed he makes no mention that the re spondent was r aped.7

Id. The BIA found no evidenc e that the I J was biased or that the I J ’s conduct prejudic ed the Mart ini s. I n their petition for re view under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the Martinis make two claims. First, the family claims that by

interrupting Martini’s counse l and asking her “ combative” quest ions during the hea ring , the I J abandone d her impar tial, judicial role. They

asser t that the I J reta ined her

biases from her prior job as a

DHS attorney

and that by

actingas a “ second a dvocate ,” the I J deprive d the M arti n is o f a f

u ll an d f a ir h e ar in g . M arti n i B r . a t 1 4

- 1 5
. Se c o n d , th e M arti n is ar g u e th a t they
su pp or te d th e ir a pp lic a tio ns wi th “ dir e c t, c re dib le , a nd pe rs ua siv e evi de nc e ” wa rr anti nga sylum , withholding of r emoval, or huma nitarian a sy lum. Id. at 15. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review “When the B I A does ‘no t s u m m arily aff irm or adopt the I J ’s re asoning and provide [s] an explanation for its de cision, we revie w the BIA’s decision as the fina l ag ency deter mination.’” Fang Huang v. M

ukasey , 5 2 3 F. 3 d

6 4 0 , 6 5 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Ilic-Leev. Muk asey , 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007)). We revie w findi ng s of fa ct using the “substantial evide nce sta ndard” under wh ic h “ fi nd ing s o f f

a c t are c on c lus ive unles s any rea so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld be c omp e lle d to conclude to the contra

ry .” Ndrecaj v. M

ukasey , 522 F.3d 667, 672- 73 (6th Cir. 2008) (int er n al quotation marks omitted). B. D ue -P r oc e ss C lai m On appe al, the Mar

tinis arg ue that the I J deprive d them of a full and fair hear ing by acting
a s a bia se d s e c on d p ro se c uto r. We have a do pte d th e fo llo wi ngsta nd ard fo r e va luatin g du e -p ro c e ss
c la ims in r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s:8 We r e vie w d e no vo a lle g e d d ue pr oc e ss v iol a tio ns in removal he ari ng s. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 1 46 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 91 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) . We have state d th a t “ F if th Am e ndme nt gua

ra nte e s o f d ue pr oc e ss ext end to al ie ns in [r e mov a l] pr oc e e din g s, e nti tl in g t hem to a

fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ng . T o c on sti tut e fu nd a me nta l un fa ir

ne ss, howeve r, a de fec t in the removal proce eding s must have be en such a s might have led to a denial of

justice.” Hu ic oc he a- Go me z v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 699 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n a

nd c itatio ns omi tte d) . Thu s, “ pr oo f of pr e jud ic e is n e c e ssa

ry to establish a due pr ocess violation in an imm i g ration hea ring .” W ar ne r v . A sh c ro

ft , 38 1 F .3 d 5 34 , 539 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 4) . T he re fo re , r e vie wi ngan a lle g e d d ue pr oc e ss violation is a two-step inquiry : fi rs t , whether there was a defe ct in the re moval pr oc e e din g ; and

se c on d, wh e the r t

he a lie n w a s p re

jud ic e d b e c a

us e of it. Thoug h “[t] he I J is affor ded broa d discretion to control the ma nner of interrog ation in or der to asce rtain the truth,” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 391 (internal qu otatio n om it ted ), w e have re c og nize d th a t “ [a] n e utr a l ju dg e is o ne of the mos t basic d u e p rocess protections.” Re y es- Me le nd e z v . I NS , 3 42 F .3 d 1 00 1, 10 06 (9 th Cir . 2 00 3) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n o mit te d) ; see also Ahme d v. Gonzales , 398 F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005) (“ I t is undisput ed that petiti oners in such proceeding s are entitled to an unbiased a

rbiter who ha s not prejudg ed their c laims.”). Vasha v. Gonzales , 4 10 F .3 d 8 63 , 8 72 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; see also Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 673. The Mar tinis present littl e evidenc e to suppor t their due-pr ocess c laim, but they asser t that the I J repe atedly

“took over

the questioning ” of Ma

rtini. Martini Br. at 14- 15. The Mar tinis arg ue that this questioning “sug g ests that [t he I J ] retained her biases fr om he r work for the I NS and DHS.” Id. Fe dera l law empowe rs an I J to “admini ster oaths, re ceive evidenc e, and inter rog ate, e x amine, and cr oss-examine the alien a nd any wi t n es ses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (1). The re is no indication from the r ecor d that the I J ab u s ed o r o v ersteppe d these statutory power s. The I J ’s ora l decision specific ally delineate d the inconsistencies that led the I J to c onclude that Martini was not cr edible. J .A. at 32-74 ( I J Dec ision at 2-44). Cf. Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 673 (finding no due proc ess violation in part bec ause “ [t ]he I J g ave a detailed de scription of all of the inconsistencies t hat he identified and then explained how those inconsistencie s supported his finding
. . .”). The I J ’s questions here explored po t ential inconsistencies, a nd the I J ruled a g ainst the Martinis, but the Martinis have9

prese nted no evidenc e that the I J abandone d her impar tial role. See Balliu v. Gonzales , 192 F. App’ x 427, 434-35 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion) ( finding no due-pr ocess violation wher e “the tr ans c ri pt o f t

he he ari ngsh ow s n o in tim idatin g or ho sti le c on du c t o n th e pa rt of the I J”) ; Malaj v. Gonzales , 199 F. App’ x 453, 460 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (“ Whil e the I J was a n
asser tive questioner of Malaj, and w as occ asionally brusque, our

revie w of the r ecor d does not reve al that the I J was biase d or that Malaj was unable to pre sent her c ase f ully .”). A ccor dingly , we
c on c lud e that th e Mart ini s h a ve no t sh ow n a vio la tio n o f t

he ir du e -p ro c e ss r ig hts
. C. As ylu m Cl aim The Mar tinis nex t argue that the I J and BIA err ed in de ny ing the Martinis asylum. To qua lify fo r a sylum , a

n a pp lic ant m

us t pr ov e that he or

sh e is a re fu g e e wh o cann ot or wi ll not re tur n to his or her co u n t ry “b ecause of pe rsec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution on ac count of ra ce,
re lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a pa rt ic ula r soc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on .” 8 U .S. C. § 1 10 1( a )( 42 )( A) ; see Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 674. Once the applicant ha s made this showing , he or she m ust “mer it[ ] a favorable exercise of discretion by the I J .” Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 406 (6th Cir. 2007). To establish past per s ecution, the a pplicant must show “more tha n a fe w iso la te d in c ide nts of

ve rb a l ha ra s sme nt o r i nti mid a tio n, un a c c omp anie d b y any ph y sic a l pu

nis hme nt, infliction of harm, or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” M i k h a i l e v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) ; see also Ndrecaj , 5 22 F .3 d at 67 4. An a pp lic ant “ do e s n ot n e e d to e sta bli shthat hi s g overnme nt is more like l y t h an not t o perse cute him” in orde r to show a we ll-founded f ear of perse cution. Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 674. The testimony

of an a pplicant, without more, ca n be enoug h to establish past perse cution or
a we ll-founded f

ear of per secution. Id. ; 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Howeve r, stand-a lone testimony suffice sAs pa rt of the REA LI D A c t of

20 05 , Cong re ss a

me nd e d 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )( B )( iii ) t o 8 s t a t e t h a tc r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s m ay b e m a d e “ w i t h o u tr e g ar d t o w h e t h e r

ani n c o n s i s t e n c y, inacc urac y , or falsehood g oes to the hea rt of the a pplicant’s cla im.” See A mir v. Gonzales , 467 F.3d 921, 925 n.4 (6th Cir. 2006). This chang e does not a ffe ct this c ase beca use it pertains only

to aliens who apply

for a sy lum on or after

May 11, 2005. Id. 10 only if the trier

of fa ct finds that testimony cre dible. Ndrecaj , 5 22 F .3 d at 67 4. We r e vie w a dv e rs e finding s of cr edibility

under the following standard: 8 Credibility

deter minations are considere d finding s of fa ct, and a re r eviewe d under the substantial evidence standard. Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703 (6th Cir. 20 04 ). Th is i s a

de fe re nti a l st and ard : A re vie wi ng c ourt sh ou ld n ot r e ve rs e “ sim

ply beca use it is convinced that it would have decide d the ca se diffe rently .” Klawi tter v . I NS , 970 F.2d 149, 151-52 (6th Cir. 1992) (interna l c itations omitted). Whil e an adver se cr edibility

finding is aff

o rd ed substantial defe renc e, the f inding must be supported by specific rea sons. Se e Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 3 55 F .3 d 6 15 , 6 23 n. 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) ; Ga o v . A sh c ro

ft , 299 F.3d 266, 276 ( 3d Cir. 2002) (“The re asons must be su bs tanti a l and

be ar a le g iti ma te ne xus to the fi nd ing .” ). An adv ers e c re dib ili ty finding must be based on issues that go to the he art of the applicant’ s claim. They “ca nnot b e based on a

n irrele vant inconsistency .” Daneshv ar , 355 F.3d at 619 n.2 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . “ I f dis c re pa nc ie s ‘c ann ot be vie we d a s atte mpt s b y the a pp lic ant t o enhanc e his claims of persecution, t hey have no bear ing on cre dibilit y .’” Id. at 623 (q u o t i n g Sh ah v . I

NS , 220 F.3d 1062, 1068 ( 9th Cir. 2000)). Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925- 26 (6th Cir. 2004). As the B I A n ote d, so me of the dis c re pa

nc ie s c ite d b y

the I J und e rm ine Mart ini ’s c re dib ili ty and g o to the hear

t o f h er c laim. The B I A spec ified contra dictions surrounding Martini’s ra pe, including w her e and when Mar tini sought treatment, the identity of the individuals who ra ped Mart ini , a nd the fa ilure of

pe op le wh o a lle g e dly

kn e w a bo ut the ra

pe to me nti on it i n th e ir

a ff ida vit s as supporting a finding that Martini was not cr edible. See J .A. at 7-8 ( BIA Orde r). Eve n assuming that not all of the inconsistencie s noted by the I J g o to the hea

rt of the Ma

rtinis’ claims, the B I A and the I J identified enoug h serious inconsis t en ci es t h at we c annot say that any rea sonable fa ct finder11

would h av e fo u n d o t herw ise. See Ndrec aj , 522 F.3d at 672-73. Acc ording ly , we must deny the Mart ini s’ pe tit ion

fo r r e vie w o f t

he B I A’ s d e c isi on

to d e ny a sylum
. D. W i th h o l d i n g o f

Re mov a l Cl a i ms Martini also appe als dismissal of her cla ims for withholdin g of re moval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“I NA”) and the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . Both of these claims are revie wed unde r the same standard. Ndrecaj , 522 F.3d at 677. We must “uphold the B I A’ s d e te rm inatio n a g a ins t w ith ho ldi ngthe re mov a l of an ali e n, un le ss i t is manif e stl y c on tr a ry to the law . Furt

he rm or e , a

ny a dmi nis tr a tiv e fi nd ing s o f f a c t are c on c lus ive un le ss a ny re a so na ble adjudicator

would be compe lled to c onclude to the c ontrary .” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). As dis c us se d a

bo ve , be c a

us e the I J d e sc ri be d inc on sis te nc ie s that g o to the he art of the Mart ini s’ claims, we c annot say

that denial of w ithholding is manifestly contra ry to law. Ad dit ion a lly , in

or de r t o q ua lif y fo r w ith ho ldi ngun de r t

he I NA , a n a pp lic ant m

us t sh owpa st perse cution or that “‘ it is more likely than not that he or she would be per secute d’” be cause of “‘ rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or any political opinion.’” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b))
. Simi larly , an applicant must show that “‘it is more likely than not that he or she w o u ld

b e to rtu r e d if r e mo v e d to th e p r o p o s e d

c o u n tr y o f r e mo v a l’ ” in

o r d e r to qu a li f y f or withholding under

the CAT. Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) (2))
. These substantive sta ndards that must be met to qualify for withholdi ng of removal under the I NA or the C AT ar e more stringe nt than the on e a pp lie d to c la ims fo r a sylum
. Th e re fo re , be c a us e the Ma

rt ini s ar e no t e lig ibl e fo r a sylum , it necessa rily follows that they are not e ligible for withholding of re moval under e ither the I NA or the CAT. Id. Given this standard of revie w, we de ny

the Martinis’ petition for r eview of the B I A’s de c isi on to d e ny wi thh old ingof

re mov a l.12

E . H u man i ta ri a n -A s y l u m Cl a i ms F ina lly , th e Mart in is a

rgue tha t th e y are e lig ibl e fo r h

uma nit ari a n a sylum un de r 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(B ). The Ma rtinis raised this claim b ef o re the I J and the B I A, but neither expressly ruled on thi s issue. Humanitaria n asylum is a ty

pe of discretionary

relief that is gr anted to asy l u m s eekers who c annot show that they have a “we ll-founded f

ear of per secution” but who have “ established that ther e is a re asonable possibili ty that [t hey ] m ay

suffe r other serious harm upon
remova l” to the applica

nt’s country

of nationality
. 8 C
. F. R
. § 1208.13(b)( 1)(iii)(B ). We have explained that this “‘[other-se rious-har m] provision provides a second avenue of relief for victims of past persecution whose fe ar of future pe rsec ution on account of a prote cted g ro u n d h as been
re bu tte d b y

e viden c e of

c ha ng e d c ountr

y c on dit ion s o r o f s a fe ha rb or s w ith in h is o r h e r h ome country .’” Ben Ham ida v. Gonzales , 4 7 8 F. 3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 641- 42 (6th Cir. 2005)) (e mphasis added) (citation omitted). We h a ve state d th a t “ it i s th e B I A, rat her tha n th is c ourt , w hic h is the pr op e r f or um” to
a d dr e s s in it ia ll y a c la im f o r h u ma n it arian a sy lum. Liti , 411 F.3d at 642. Accor dingly , in an
a pp ro pr ia te c a se , if

the B I A f a ile d to a dd

re ss e xplic itl y a re qu e st fo r humanit ari an a sylum , w e wo uld
rema nd the ca se to allow the B I A t o make that de termination. Se e, e .g ., Ne li v . A sh c ro ft , 85 F. App’ x 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2003). The Martinis’ ca se, howe ver, doe s not require rema n d. As detailed above, the Martinis have not pr esente d cre dible evidenc e of past per secution or a well-founde d fea

r of per secution. B eca

use a showingof past perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution is an
e sse nti a l e le me nt of a su cces sf ul h uma nit ari an- a sylum

c la im, the Ma

rt ini s c ann ot s uc c e e d o n th isEven thoug h a finding that an asylum seeker cannot e stablish past persec ution encompasses 9 an implied denial of a

claim for huma

nitarian a sy lu m , we e ncoura g e I J s and the B I A to decide e xplic itl y wh e the r h

uma nit ari an a sylum

is p ro pe r a

nd to e xpla in t

hei r rat iona le wh e n a

pp lic a nts pr e se nt r e qu e sts fo r h

uma nit ari an a sylum
. 13 c la im a nd are ine lig ibl e fo r h

uma nit ari an a sylum
. See B en Hamida , 4 78 F .3 d at 74 1 ( “ [Pet iti on e rs ] 9 have fa ile d to of

fe r c re dib le e vid e nc e that th e y we re pe rs e c ute d in

Tunis ia . T he re fo re , th e ir c la im for humanitar ian asyl u m m u s t fa i l
. ”). Thus, w e deny the Martinis’ petition seekingrevie w of the B I A’ s f a ilure to c on sid e r t

he ir c la ims fo r h

uma nit ari an a sylum
. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons discussed a

bove, we DENY the Martinis’ petition for r eview of the B I A’s
or de r d e nyingthe m a sylum , w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l, a

nd , im pli e dly , huma

nit ari an a sylum
.