United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1775
CHANTHOU HEM and KHIENG HAY MOM a.k.a. KIMHENG TEK,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL*
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Selya, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Joseph A. MacDonald on brief for petitioners.
Elizabeth A. Greczek, Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and Barry
J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, on brief for respondent.
January 24, 2008
____________________________
*Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey has been substituted for former Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales as the respondent herein.
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Petitioners Chanthou Hem and
Khieng Hay Mom, a wife and husband, are citizens of Cambodia who
seek review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals
("BIA") affirming denial of their application for asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
Torture ("CAT").1 An Immigration Judge ("IJ") found that their
accounts of political persecution lacked credibility, and the BIA
agreed that significant discrepancies in their stories undermined
their claims. Our own review of the record persuades us that
substantial evidence supports the IJ's and BIA's rulings and we
therefore deny the petition for review.
I.
Petitioner Hem entered the United States in December 2003
on a non-immigrant visa that required her to depart by June 27,
2004. Mom had entered about a year earlier, in December 2002,
using a passport in the name of Tek Kim Heng. On August 2, 2004,
Hem filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal and
also sought protection under the CAT. The application was denied,
and both Hem and Mom subsequently received notices to appear for
removal proceedings. Hem was charged with remaining in the United
States longer than permitted in violation of § 237(a)(1)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), and Mom
1
Hem is the lead petitioner and Mom is seeking derivative
asylum status.
-2-
was charged with failure to possess a valid entry document in
violation of § 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A).
The IJ heard testimony on January 6 and July 15, 2005.
In a lengthy written decision issued on November 3, 2005, the IJ
denied all claims based on the petitioners' lack of credibility.
On April 17, 2007, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision,
adding comments to explain why it found no clear error in the IJ's
adverse credibility ruling.2 In their petition for review, Hem and
Mom challenge the credibility determination and assert that the
record supports their claims for relief.
II.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must prove
either past persecution, which gives rise to an inference of future
persecution, or establish a well founded fear of future persecution
on account of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a
social group, or political opinion. Ouk v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 63,
67 (1st Cir. 2007). The applicant bears the burden of proving that
it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted. Mewengkang
v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 737, 739 (1st Cir. 2007).
2
The BIA also responded to Hem's argument that information
may have been missing from the hearing transcript and that the
hearing was otherwise unfair. Those issues have not been raised in
this petition for judicial review and we do not consider them.
-3-
When the BIA has adopted and affirmed the IJ's ruling,
but has included discussion of some of the IJ's bases for decision,
we review both the IJ's and BIA's opinions. Lin v. Gonzales, 503
F.3d 4, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2007); Zheng v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 30, 33
(1st Cir. 2007). In this case, both the IJ and BIA relied entirely
on petitioners' lack of credibility in rejecting their claims for
relief, and our review therefore focuses on "whether the adverse
credibility determination is 'supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.'" Heng
v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Simo v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 2006)). We will uphold the IJ's
determination "unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
Hoxha v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 210, 216 (1st Cir. 2006).
In evaluating the agency's credibility determination, we
consider whether the reasons given by the IJ are specific and
cogent and based on omissions and discrepancies in the record that
were not adequately explained by the alien. Hoxha, 446 F.3d at
214, 217-220 (applying test from In re A-S-, 21 I & N Dec. 1106,
1109 (BIA 1998)); see also Castañeda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d
17, 22 (1st Cir. 2007) (en banc); Zheng v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 60,
63 (1st Cir. 2006). However, "an adverse credibility determination
cannot rest on trivia but must be based on discrepancies that
'involved the heart of the asylum claim.'" Bojorques-Villanueva v.
-4-
INS, 194 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (quoting De
Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1997)); see
also Lin, 503 F.3d at 7; Mewengkang, 486 F.3d at 740.3
In the following sections, we summarize the evidence
presented to the IJ and then discuss the IJ's and BIA's evaluation
of that evidence.
B. Summary of the Evidence
Hem stated in her affidavit that after the Khmer Rouge
gained control of Cambodia in 1975, she and her family were forced
to leave the city of Phnom Penh and, during this period, she
witnessed one of her brothers being beheaded. In 1987, she married
Khieng Hay Mom, who was studying to become a medical assistant, and
started a business selling clothes in the Tek Thlar market. She
stated that their lives were difficult because they did not support
the Cambodian Peoples Party ("CPP") and its leader, Hun Sen. In
1989, her husband was sent to a dangerous area near the Thai border
to care for injured soldiers and was nearly killed in an attack on
the treatment center by the Khmer Rouge. After escaping with the
help of friends, he stayed away from work for nine months for fear
3
We previously have noted that, under the REAL ID Act of
2005, discrepancies "may support an adverse credibility finding
'without regard to whether [the] inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim,'" Lin, 503
F.3d at 7 n.2 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The new
provision applies only to applications for asylum or other relief
filed after May 11, 2005, and it is thus inapplicable here. Hoxha,
446 F.3d at 216 n.4.
-5-
of being sent back to the battlefield. He returned to work because
of threats that he would lose his government position, but later
returned to school for his medical degree.
In February 1993, two of Hun Sen's policemen came to
Hem's shop and threatened to close it unless she signed a statement
of support for the CPP, which she reluctantly did. In December
1995, Hem and Mom joined the Khmer National Party led by Sam
Rainsy, and Hem was later verbally threatened on multiple occasions
by Hun Sen supporters. Although Mom graduated from medical school
in 1996, he was unable to obtain a job as a doctor because he was
not a member of the CPP. He opened his own office, where
Lieutenant Sem Rin and other policemen supportive of Hun Sen came
to solicit political and financial support for the CPP. Hem closed
her clothing business to help her husband.
During a coup in July 1997, when Hun Sen's followers
arrested and killed many political opponents, Hem, Mom and their
two children fled to another part of Cambodia for a week. Upon
their return, they discovered that Mom's office had been
vandalized, and a t-shirt with the CPP logo was left in the office.
In March 1998, Hem and Mom continued their affiliation with Sam
Rainsy by joining the newly established Sam Rainsy Party ("SRP"),
and they "campaigned actively" in the Kampong Tralach District
before the July 1998 election. Hem reported that they were
harassed "physically and verbally" by Hun Sen followers "[d]ue to
-6-
our popularity within the party." On April 13, 1998, Hem received
a phone call that she believed was from Lieutenant Rin threatening
that she should stop helping the SRP "or you'll be in big trouble."
On election day in July, the couple were "almost killed" when their
motorcycle was run off the road by a truck bearing the CPP logo in
which Rin and another man were riding. Among other injuries to the
couple, Hem said she needed six stitches to close a wound on her
forehead.
Hem's affidavit lists a series of other threatening
incidents between late 1998 and her departure from Cambodia: (1) on
September 1, 1998, Lieutenant Rin came to her workplace "with a
warning that he would feed me a bullet if I continue supporting
SRP"; (2) twice in August 2001, all of the tires on Hem's car were
slashed, and the second time, the assailant left a note "stating
that we would be dead if we continued to support the SRP"; (3) in
October 2001, several bullets hit Hem's office walls and shattered
her windows;4 (4) after the February 2002 local elections, in which
Sam Rainsy members won seats in petitioners' district, Hem and Mom
received more death threats when Hun Sen followers learned that Mom
would be on the new electoral committee for the July 2003 election;
(5) in March 2002, Lieutenant Rin encountered Hem in the local
market and warned that she would be killed if she continued to help
4
At the hearing, Hem testified that the bullets hit her
house. The discrepancy could be a translation error.
-7-
the SRP; (6) in June 2002, while Mom was closing his office, a man
on a motorcycle fired at him twice. Both petitioners testified at
the hearing that the man was Lieutenant Rin.
After the shooting incident, Mom closed his office and
arranged to purchase a passport and visa under an assumed name. He
left Cambodia at the end of 2002 without Hem. On two occasions in
September 2003, after his departure, Lieutenant Rin traveled
approximately fifty kilometers to Hem's home to ask about Mom's
whereabouts. She testified that, on the first visit, Lieutenant
Rin told her she would be killed if she did not find her husband.
On the second visit, which took place at about 7 a.m., he searched
the house, pointed a gun at her, and threatened to arrest her if
her husband did not show up. On both occasions, Lieutenant Rin
left without taking action. Hem testified that she was not
actively involved in politics after her husband left the country.
Hem subsequently traveled to the United States with a
passport containing photographs of three children depicted as hers,
although she has only two. She testified that the third child is
her niece and that she had told the passport agency that the girl
was not her child. Mom's passport listed different children, but
Hem stated that her husband deliberately used an assumed identity
and false children's names because he was afraid he could not leave
Cambodia if he provided accurate information. Hem also testified
about her husband's travel to Vietnam and Thailand in 2002,
-8-
explaining that he was attempting to find a way to leave Cambodia
and also was trying to show that he could be trusted to return to
Cambodia if given a United States visa. Mom also testified that he
took two trips to Thailand and one to Vietnam in 2002, stating that
he feared remaining in Cambodia and wanted to explore the
availability of asylum in Thailand, but also acknowledging that he
was trying to make a good impression on the United States Embassy
in Cambodia.
C. IJ's and BIA's Evaluation of the Evidence
The IJ's decision included a detailed summary of the
testimony given by both petitioners at the hearing and explained at
length why the judge concluded that "[t]he testimony was neither
consistent, nor sufficiently detailed to provide a plausible and
coherent account of the basis of [Hem's] fear." The decision
listed seven specific points of concern:
1. Both petitioners testified that Lieutenant Rin was
the individual who shot at Mom from a motorcycle in June 2002, but
Hem's affidavit had identified the assailant only as "a man on a
motorcycle" – despite the fact that the affidavit included specific
references to Rin in eight other paragraphs.
2. Hem did not mention the two tire-slashing episodes in
her direct testimony, and her testimony about other alleged attacks
on her house and threats against her was "vague and lacked
-9-
specificity of detail, as did her testimony about the political
activities that allegedly motivated these threats."
3. Although Hem stated in her asylum application that
she was subject to arrest in Cambodia and that her husband also was
being sought by Hun Sen's policemen, she testified during cross-
examination that there was no arrest warrant for either of them.
She also testified that only Lieutenant Rin, and not the Cambodian
government as a whole, was seeking their arrest.
4. The IJ found "inherently improbable" Hem's testimony
that Lieutenant Rin twice traveled fifty kilometers to her home to
inquire about her husband's whereabouts and threaten her. The
judge noted that Hem did not explain how Rin knew where she was and
why he would make the trips and then not carry out the threats.
5. Hem showed "very limited knowledge" of the Sam Rainsy
Party and the political situation in Cambodia, which the IJ deemed
inconsistent with her claim of persecution based on political
activism. She could not explain the reasons for the military coup
in 1997 that she claimed prompted her and her husband to go into
hiding, and she did not know the name of the SRP representative
from her district. She also had not been politically involved
since coming to the United States and was unaware that the SRP had
an office in the town where she lived (Lowell, Massachusetts).
6. Mom's testimony about the reasons for his brief trips
to Vietnam and Thailand were not credible, and his testimony that
-10-
he took the trips because he felt in danger was inconsistent with
Hem's explanation for the trips and "utterly inconsistent with his
return to Cambodia the same day or two days later."
7. Both petitioners admitted making false statements in
their visa interviews at the U.S. Embassy, and Mom testified that
he had presented false documents to obtain a U.S. visa. Although
acknowledging that false documents would not on their own
necessarily undermine credibility, the IJ noted that the
petitioners had not adequately explained why it was necessary for
Mom, but not Hem, to travel under an assumed name and further
questioned, inter alia, the listing of Hem's niece on her passport.
The IJ concluded that, "[t]aken as a whole, the above
discrepancies do not concern 'trivia', but rather facts that 'go to
the heart of the asylum claim,'" leading the judge to find that
"neither respondent testified credibly, and therefore the
respondents did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum."
The BIA's per curiam decision reviewed several of the
inconsistencies, including Hem's failure to identify Lieutenant Rin
in her affidavit as the individual who shot at her husband from a
motorcycle. The BIA noted that, because Hem testified that Rin was
the only Hun Sen follower interested in her political involvement,
and thus the only person whom she now fears, it was significant to
her claim "whether he was the shooter or whether it was a different
individual 'on a motorcycle' as the application indicates." The
-11-
BIA also pointed out that her testimony that Lieutenant Rin was the
only one interested in her contrasted with her application
statement that she was generally subject to arrest by police
authorities in Cambodia, and observed that "[t]his is a noteworthy
difference regarding the nature of the threat and potential
persecutor(s) she allegedly would face."
The BIA also pointed to Hem's failure to meaningfully
challenge the IJ's finding that she had little political knowledge,
concluding that "[t]he Immigration Judge did not clearly err in
finding that the respondent's lack of political knowledge about her
own party undercut the credibility of her assertions of political
involvement." Although the BIA deemed Hem's failure to mention the
tire slashing incidents in her direct testimony as less important,
it observed that such an omission was "of concern" because Hem
herself had few "direct and unambiguous difficulties" from
Lieutenant Rin. The BIA also found it significant that Hem used
her own name for traveling, but Mom felt compelled to use a false
name.
Given these and other unexplained aspects of petitioners'
testimony, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ's credibility
determination and, consequently, concluded that Hem failed to meet
her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA
also concluded that she had presented no credible evidence of
-12-
either past torture or the likelihood of future torture in Cambodia
and thus was ineligible for CAT relief.
III.
After carefully reviewing the record in this case, we
cannot conclude that the IJ was compelled to find the petitioners
credible. Both the IJ and BIA carefully reviewed Hem's affidavit
and the testimony presented at the hearing and provided thorough
summaries of the evidence underlying their adverse credibility
determinations. The IJ and BIA cited many concerns about the
evidence, some of which go to the heart of petitioners' claim that
they suffered persecution and face continuing danger in Cambodia
based on their political opposition to Hun Sen and his followers.
Petitioners testified that the episode that prompted Mom to depart
from Cambodia was the shooting by Lieutenant Rin in June 2002, yet
Hem's affidavit did not identify him as the shooter. In their
brief to the BIA, petitioners suggested that the paralegal who
transcribed the affidavit may not have recognized the significance
of Rin's name, but that speculation is weak given that the
affidavit contained many references to Rin. It seems unlikely that
the importance of his role in a shooting episode could be
overlooked. In addition, Hem testified that Lieutenant Rin was the
only police officer seeking to arrest the couple. Thus, the IJ and
BIA reasonably could give weight to Hem's failure to identify him
specifically at the time the affidavit was prepared.
-13-
Relatedly, we cannot fault the IJ and BIA for doubting
that Lieutenant Rin twice traveled fifty kilometers – roughly
thirty-five miles – to Hem's home to threaten her nine months after
her husband's departure from Cambodia and at a time when her own
political activity was waning. In addition, the absence of detail
in Hem's description of the couple's political involvement, her
admission that she was not actively involved in politics after her
husband left Cambodia, and her lack of continuing interest in Sam
Rainsy activities after she moved to the United States also support
the agency finding that she failed to present a credible account of
political activism that was significant enough to trigger the
shootings and death threats she reported. It remains unexplained
why Hem, the lead petitioner, was able to use her own name on her
passport and related materials, but her husband felt it necessary
to purchase a fraudulent passport under an assumed name.
Where eligibility for asylum is based on the applicant's
testimony alone, an adverse credibility determination "will usually
doom her application." Lin, 503 F.3d at 7. So it is here. As
described above, the IJ and BIA provided "specific, cogent, and
supportable explanation[s]" for their credibility judgments, Simo,
445 F.3d at 11, and petitioners have therefore failed to meet their
burden of proving either past political persecution or a well
founded fear of future persecution. See, e.g., Zheng, 464 F.3d at
64 (noting the IJ's listing of ten independent grounds for his
-14-
credibility determination, "all involving conspicuous facts central
to Zheng's religious persecution claim") (citing Rodriguez Del
Carmen v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2004), for the
proposition that "vagueness and contradiction in material details
of an alien's testimony support an adverse credibility
determination"). They likewise have failed to establish
eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection, as they
have not shown by credible evidence that it is "more likely than
not that [they] will be persecuted or tortured in [their] country
of origin." Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 351 (1st Cir.
2005).
The petition for review is denied.
-15-