United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-2174
KHEANG HONG LONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO GONZALES,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Stylianos, Jr. on brief for petitioner.
Jeffrey D. Martino, Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, and Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office
of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondents.
September 6, 2005
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Kheang Hong Long,
a native and citizen of Cambodia, seeks review of the denial of his
application for asylum. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Long
was not credible, and that he failed to establish past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed and adopted the IJ's decision.
We affirm the BIA and deny the petition for review.1
I.
Long entered the United States as a visitor for pleasure
on February 16, 2001. Long timely filed an application for asylum,
claiming he had been a victim of past persecution and had a well-
founded fear of future persecution because of his activities with
the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), an opposition party to the ruling
Cambodian People's Party (CPP). In his application for asylum,2
Long recounted a number of events of persecution. Long wrote that
on March 30, 1997, he was injured by a hand grenade while attending
a protest against the Cambodian government. In July of the same
year, Long stated, he left Cambodia for Thailand after the
Cambodian government attacked opposition groups during an attempted
1
Alberto Gonzales was sworn in as Attorney General of the
United States on February 3, 2005. We have substituted him for
John Ashcroft, previous holder of that office, as the lead
respondent. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
2
Long also asked for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied relief on both
these grounds. Long did not appeal these denials, and therefore
they are not at issue in this case.
-2-
coup d'etat. He returned to Cambodia five months later. Long
claimed that he was then arrested by the CPP on December 31, 2000,
while recruiting new members to the SRP and was placed in jail for
10 days, where he was beaten and interrogated. According to Long,
upon his release his tormentors warned him that he would be killed
if he continued to support the SRP. He also stated that he had
owned a restaurant in Cambodia but that, at some unspecified time,
the CPP "forced [him] to close [it] because of persecution and
intimidation." Long also stated that his wife and two children had
"gone to stay with [his wife's] sister" and that they had to "stay
out of the public eye for fear of being recognized by the
government."
On January 2, 2002, Long was placed under oath and
interviewed, through a translator, by an asylum officer (AO). At
this interview Long recounted many of the details above, including
the fact that he joined the SRP after high school in 1993. After
this interview, the AO denied Long's asylum application and
referred the case to an IJ for a merits hearing. In the assessment
to refer memo, the AO noted a number of inconsistencies in Long's
testimony. Long could not remember significant details about the
SRP, such as whether Sam Rainsy had formed his own party at the
time Long joined it, or the original name of the party. Long also
could not remember when authorities threatened to burn down his
restaurant. He first stated that government authorities threatened
-3-
to burn down his restaurant on January 10, 2001 and then stated
that it was in February of 2001. When asked to explain, Long
stated that they in fact came twice, and then stated he was not
sure because he was confused. Finally, Long was unable to remember
any details about his imprisonment other than the beatings. The
asylum officer concluded that Long "was unable to provide a
reasonable explanation for this lack of detail and inconsistencies
which are material because they concern his claimed political
activities and abuse by the authorities."
The Immigration and Naturalization Service3 began removal
proceedings against Long on January 9, 2002. During a merits
hearing before an IJ, the assessment to refer memo was introduced
into evidence by the government, without objection from Long's
attorney. Long stated that he had run his restaurant in Cambodia
until December of 2000. However, the passport Long used to come to
the United States, which he obtained in November of 2000, listed
his occupation as "salesman." When asked to explain what exactly
he sold, Long said "I sell everything that's in restaurant which is
the orange juice and coke and the beers and the spring waters and
food and noodles." Later, when questioned by the judge about the
present location of his wife and children, Long reiterated that his
wife and children were "now liv[ing] in Phnom Penh with my . . .
3
The functions of the INS were subsequently subsumed in the
Department of Homeland Security.
-4-
sister-in-law," and provided their address. The government
attorney then questioned Long:
Q: Isn't that your address that you just said for
your wife and children . . . on your passport,
sir, issued in 2000?
A: Yes.
Q: So your wife and children are still living in your
house in Phnom Penh, correct? It's a yes or no
question.
A: Before that . . . escaping from place to place and
living house to house and because they don't have
the money to rent, so finally she end up came back
to old house and this is what happened.
Q: So, yes, she lives in the same house you lived in
when you left Cambodia now, right?
A: Yes.
Later, when Long offered his SRP membership card into evidence, he
stated, "I received the cards [sic] in 1998 when I joined the
party." But later when asked more specifically when he joined the
SRP, Long stated "I joined the Sam Rainsy party since I was in
school back in 1995." When asked to explain the inconsistency,
Long once again resorted to evasive maneuvers: "The card issued to
me in 1998, . . . but I was an active member of Sam Rainsy party
since 1995 when I was in school." These responses were all
inconsistent with Long's statement to the asylum officer that he
had been a member of the SRP since 1993.
The IJ denied Long's application for asylum in an oral
decision on May 8, 2003, finding that Long was not credible and
-5-
therefore had not made a showing of past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution. First, the IJ cited the
discrepancies found by the AO, as detailed in the assessment to
refer. Second, the IJ pointed to the discrepancy between Long's
passport, issued in November of 2000, which lists his occupation as
"salesman," and Long's testimony that he runs a restaurant. Third,
the IJ pointed to Long's admitted lies in his visa application as
to whether his restaurant was still open and his status as a
visitor for pleasure. Finally, the IJ noted that Long had provided
no evidence corroborating the story of his arrest by the CPP. Long
appealed to the BIA, which adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision,
making it the final agency determination for the purposes of
appellate review. See Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 373 (1st
Cir. 2003). Long then petitioned this court for review solely as
to the asylum claim.
II.
This case turns on the adverse credibility decision by
the IJ. We review factual findings and credibility determinations
under the deferential substantial evidence standard. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Singh v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d
156, 159 (1st Cir. 2005). The IJ's determination must stand
"unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Rodriguez-Ramirez
v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 120, 123 (1st Cir. 2005). The deference to
-6-
the IJ is not unlimited, however. The IJ must provide specific
reasons for its determination that, in turn, are supported by the
evidence. See Akinwande v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 517, 522 (1st Cir.
2004). As detailed above, the IJ did precisely this.
Long makes two arguments in response. First, Long faults
the IJ's reliance on the fact that he had lied on his visa
application, and cites Matter of Pula, 19 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA
1987) in support. However, Long's "circumvention of orderly
refugee procedures" was not the "the sole or even primary focus of
the IJ," Albathani, 318 F.3d at 374 n.5, and therefore Long's
argument is unavailing. Second, Long argues that the IJ erred
because he did not make "independent findings" but "merely
concur[red]" with the asylum officer's assessment to refer. This
argument also fails. In addition to the AO's report, the IJ
provided a number of specific, independent reasons supporting his
decision.4 Furthermore, even a cursory glance through the facts
recounted above reveals a number of serious discrepancies among
Long's statements in his asylum application, to the asylum officer,
and before the IJ. Thus, based on this record, there was
substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that Long
4
In Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir.
2005), the court held that an IJ's reliance on an assessment to
refer is inappropriate under certain circumstances. This case does
not present the same issue since the IJ here provided a number of
valid reasons besides the discrepancies noted in the assessment to
refer.
-7-
was not credible, and we cannot say a contrary conclusion is
compelled.
The petition for review is denied.
-8-