United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-2202
MALY CHHAY,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD
OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Selya, Circuit Judge,
and Dyk,* Circuit Judge.
Vanthan R. Un on brief for petitioner.
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Office of
Immigration Litigation, and Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation
Counsel, on brief for respondent.
August 15, 2008
*
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
SELYA, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Maly Chhay, is a
Cambodian national who seeks judicial review of a final order of
removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). She
challenges a ruling declaring her ineligible for asylum, the denial
of her cross-application for withholding of removal and protection
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the
supposed trampling of her due process rights by an Immigration
Judge (IJ). We lack jurisdiction over the asylum claim and find
the remainder of her asseverational array unpersuasive. Hence, we
deny the petition for review.
The facts are unremarkable. The petitioner lawfully
entered the United States as a visitor on March 9, 2001 and married
a United States citizen some four months thereafter. Her new
husband filed an I-130 petition to her behoof along with an I-485
application for adjustment of her immigration status. These
filings came to naught, in part because there was an absence of
evidence that the parties intended to establish a life together.
The couple soon divorced and, inasmuch as the petitioner had been
denied an adjustment of status, the Department of Homeland Security
instituted removal proceedings against her. See 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(B).
The petitioner appeared in the immigration court on April
18, 2005, and indicated an intention to apply for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The IJ ruled
-2-
on timeliness grounds that she was ineligible to seek asylum. See
id. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (providing a window of one year from the date
of an alien's arrival in the United States within which to file for
asylum). Some seven weeks later, the petitioner cross-applied for
withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. She did not
actually apply for asylum.
The matter came on for hearing on January 6, 2006, albeit
before a different judge. The petitioner conceded removability but
claimed that she feared persecution in her homeland due to her
membership in the Sam Rainsy political party — a group that stood
in opposition to the party in power led by Prime Minister Hun Sen.
She testified that, prior to emigrating to the United States, she
worked as an accountant in Phnom Penh and simultaneously served the
Sam Rainsy party as an unpaid liaison to the Cambodian Center for
Human Rights (the Center). In that capacity, she attended
provincial seminars throughout Cambodia concerning human rights
(specifically, the abuse of women by government officials). She
claims to have worked closely with the Center's director, Kem
Sokha, and to have reported the information that she learned to
Sokha. He ostensibly used it to denounce the government.
According to the petitioner, she feared that the
government knew of her role as an informer. She noted that since
her arrival in the United States, Cambodian officials have arrested
Sokha and other persons associated with the Sam Rainsy party. She
-3-
views these arrests as a harbinger of what is likely to happen to
her should she be repatriated.
To complement this testimony, the petitioner introduced
a substantial amount of background information relating to
conditions in her homeland. These exhibits included newspaper
articles describing the arrests of Sokha and a broadcaster, Mam
Sonando, in 2005.
Confronted with this and other evidence, the IJ focused
on the petitioner's account of her partisan political activity. He
stated that he was not persuaded by that aspect of the petitioner's
testimony, explaining that it was wholly uncorroborated and thus
inadequate to sustain her burden of proof. Relatedly, he found no
credible evidence that torture was a likely result of repatriation.
Consequently, he denied the petitioner's claims for relief and
ordered her removal.
The petitioner appealed. The BIA adopted and affirmed
the IJ's decision. In addition, it denied the petitioner's nascent
due process claim premised on the IJ's supposed failure to consider
relevant evidence. This timely petition for judicial review
followed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)-(2).
In immigration matters, this court ordinarily reviews the
decision of the BIA. Stroni v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 82, 86 (1st Cir.
2006). Here, however, the BIA summarily affirmed, adopting the
-4-
IJ's decision. In that circumstance, we review the IJ's decision
directly. Id. at 86-87.
In the course of that review, we evaluate findings of
fact, including credibility determinations, under a substantial
evidence standard. Sok v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir.
2008). This standard is deferential; absent an error of law, we
will reverse only if the record is such as to compel a reasonable
factfinder to reach a contrary determination. Pan v. Gonzales, 489
F.3d 80, 85 (1st Cir. 2007). Phrased another way, we will accept
all findings of fact made by the IJ as long as those findings are
"supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
the record considered as a whole." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). Abstract legal propositions are reviewed de novo,
but with some deference to the agency's reasonable interpretation
of statutes and regulations within its ken. See Pulisir v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 302, 307 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-
44 (1984).
We start with the claim for asylum. The petitioner
suggests before this court that she qualifies for an exception to
the timeliness rules governing asylum applications and is thus
eligible for asylum. This suggestion is meritless.
To qualify for asylum, an alien normally must show by
clear and convincing evidence that she filed for that anodyne
-5-
within one year of her arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(2)(B); see Pan, 489 F.3d at 84 n.3. The petitioner did not
seek asylum within that period. There is, however, an exception:
an alien who files for asylum outside the one-year window may
qualify by showing either extraordinary circumstances or changed
country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).
The petitioner's attempt to invoke this exception is late
in coming. She had the opportunity to assert that claim before the
second IJ but did not do so. By the same token, she made no claim
before the BIA that the delay in filing for asylum resulted from
either extraordinary circumstances or changed country conditions.
Indeed, she neglected to raise her asylum claim at all before that
body.
In this venue, the petitioner sings a new and different
tune. She proclaims that the wave of arrests in 2005 marked a
change in country conditions that justifies her untimely attempt to
seek asylum. That does not explain, however, why she failed to
raise the claim before the second IJ at the hearing held in January
of 2006. Even less does it explain why she neglected to assert it
in her subsequent filings with the BIA.
The law is clear that, given her failure to press the
point before the BIA, the petitioner has not exhausted her
administrative remedies. That, in turn, forecloses this court from
exercising jurisdiction over any aspect of her asylum claim. See
-6-
Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2007); Makhoul v.
Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2004).
We turn next to the petitioner's claim for withholding of
removal. To be eligible for withholding of removal, "an applicant
has the burden of proving that, more likely than not, she would be
subject to persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground
should she be repatriated." Pulisir, 524 F.3d at 308; see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (listing the five protected grounds: race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and
political opinion). The alien may carry this burden either by
demonstrating past persecution or by direct proof of a likelihood
of future persecution. Pulisir, 524 F.3d at 308.
The record does not contain even a hint of an intimation
that the petitioner experienced any persecution prior to her exodus
from Cambodia.1 Consequently, the petitioner must satisfy her
burden by proving a likelihood of future persecution. See, e.g.,
Melham v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 2007).
Under a statutory formulation in effect since 2005 (and
applicable here), an alien may satisfy the devoir of persuasion on
withholding of removal by her own testimony if that testimony is
specific and credible. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
13, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §
1
The record makes manifest that the petitioner's initial
reasons for traveling to the United States were economic in nature.
-7-
1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)); see also Pan, 489 F.3d at 86. But the alien
has the burden of proof, and if her testimony is not itself
compelling the absence of easily obtainable corroborating
documentation can be the final straw. See Sela v. Mukasey, 520
F.3d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 2008); Eke v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 372, 381 (7th
Cir. 2008); Pan, 489 F.3d at 83; Hayek v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 501,
508 (1st Cir. 2006); see generally REAL ID Act § 101(a)(3). The
substantial evidence test applies in these purlieus, and a
reviewing court must accept the IJ's determinations with respect to
the persuasiveness vel non of the alien's testimony, the
availability of corroborating evidence, and the effect of non-
production unless the record compels a contrary conclusion. See
REAL ID Act § 101(e), 119 Stat. at 305 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)); see also Eke, 512 F.3d at 381; Kho v. Keisler, 505
F.3d 50, 57 (1st Cir. 2007).
In the case at hand, the IJ found a need for something
more than the petitioner's self-serving testimony to prove her
claim of membership in the Sam Rainsy party. The petitioner failed
to furnish any corroborating evidence. She also failed to explain
why such evidence, which seemed readily available, was not
supplied. On that basis, the IJ determined that the petitioner had
failed to satisfy her burden of proof.
We think that these determinations are supported by
substantial evidence. The closest case in point is Sela. There,
-8-
as here, the IJ found the petitioner generally credible but faulted
the petitioner for failing to provide corroboration. See Sela, 520
F.3d at 46-48. Resting largely on "the absence of presumably
attainable corroboration" and the absence of harm inflicted upon
the petitioner before he left his homeland, the IJ concluded that
he had not satisfied his burden of establishing that more likely
than not, he would be persecuted upon his removal. Id. at 46. We
upheld that determination based on the substantial evidence rule.
See id.
Sela controls here. Nothing offered by the petitioner
compels us to conclude that, had she been politically involved, she
could not readily have obtained some corroborating evidence as to
her claimed party membership. For example, the petitioner
testified that her mother, who continues to reside in Cambodia, had
possession of the petitioner's party membership cards, yet the
petitioner gave the IJ no reason why her mother would be unable to
send any of the cards (or copies of them) to the petitioner.
Indeed, the petitioner's only comment as to why she had failed to
obtain the cards or an affidavit from some knowledgeable person
attesting to her party membership was that she had not thought that
she would need corroborating evidence.2
2
Even so, the petitioner neither asked for a continuance to
obtain the materials nor moved to reopen the record to supply
corroboration.
-9-
The petitioner's failure to prove her membership in the
Sam Rainsy party defeats her claim. Without such proof, she cannot
demonstrate that she would be subject to persecution on account of
her political opinion should she be repatriated. She is,
therefore, not entitled to set aside the IJ's refusal to withhold
removal. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481; Hayek, 445 F.3d at
508-09.
This brings us to the petitioner's claim under Article
III of the CAT. To prevail on such a claim, she must prove that it
is more likely than not that she will be tortured if removed to her
homeland. Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2007). For
this purpose, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain
and suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person . . . when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity." 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
The IJ found that the petitioner had not carried her
burden of proof on the CAT claim. This position is entirely
supportable. To the extent that the petitioner's fear that the
Cambodian government will subject her to torture is based on her
membership in the Sam Rainsy party, she has been unable to
substantiate that membership. Beyond that, her fear of torture is
wholly speculative and her reasoning in support of it is amorphous:
-10-
she has not advanced any developed argumentation that, apart from
her supposed party affiliation, would satisfy the criteria
necessary for a successful CAT claim. Thus, we deem any such line
of argument abandoned. See Pan, 489 F.3d at 87; Jiang, 474 F.3d at
32.
Before turning to the petitioner's due process challenge,
we add a coda. The elliptical phraseology employed by the IJ in
this case, in which he termed the petitioner's testimony generally
credible while making clear that he did not believe a specific
portion of it (i.e., her claim of party membership), is confusing.
Immigration judges would do well to take pains to use more
straightforward language. The clearer a judges findings, the
easier they are for the parties to assess and for a reviewing court
to evaluate.
We come now to the petitioner's final challenge. This
challenge has two parts, both of which relate to her charge that
the proceedings below offended due process.
The first branch of the petitioner's argument consists of
a claim that the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to
consider the extensive background documentation that she submitted
to provide support for her avowed fear of future persecution. We
review de novo a claim that the agency's conduct transgressed an
alien's due process rights. Pulisir, 524 F.3d at 311; Teng v.
Mukasey, 516 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2008).
-11-
This argument need not detain us. A complaining party
must show prejudice in order to demonstrate a cognizable violation
of due process. Pulisir, 524 F.3d at 311. In this context,
prejudice equates with a showing that "an abridgement of due
process is likely to have affected the outcome of the proceedings."
Id.
Here, the record suggests that the IJ fully considered
the documentation proffered by the petitioner. For example, he
referred in his decision to a State Department country report as
well as to the background information regarding human rights
violations in Cambodia and an assortment of newspaper clippings.
In all events, further perscrutation of the background
information would not have made a dispositive difference. As said,
the IJ rested his decision on the paucity of proof anent the
petitioner's putative membership in the Sam Rainsy party. The
background evidence would not in any way shed light on this
individualized issue and, thus, any failure to consider it would
have been harmless.
The second branch of the petitioner's due process
challenge posits that the IJ accorded insufficient weight to
evidence of general conditions in Cambodia. This claim will not
wash: the mere fact that the IJ put weight on certain factors and
reached a conclusion contrary to the petitioner's interests does
not constitute a due process violation. See, e.g., id. at 309.
-12-
"So long as the IJ has given reasoned consideration to the evidence
as a whole, made supportable findings, and adequately explained
[his] reasoning," no more is exigible.3 Pan, 489 F.3d at 87.
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
we deny the petition for review.
So Ordered.
3
The petitioner's reliance on Cordero-Trejo v. INS, 40 F.3d
482 (3d Cir. 1994), is mislaid. There, the IJ based his assessment
on unfounded assumptions, without any consideration of the
background evidence of country conditions. See id. at 490-91.
Here, in contrast, substantial evidence supports the IJ's
assessment of the petitioner's case, and his references to evidence
of country conditions indicate that he did take the background
evidence into consideration.
-13-