Kip Men, et al v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60424
Summary Calendar
CHRISTINA KIP MEN; MARY LALRUATKIM,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 314 717
BIA No. A78 314 719
______________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christina Kip Men has filed a petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order, denying her and her minor daughter,
Mary Lalruatkim, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We affirm.
Kip Men is a national of Burma who has been residing illegally
in India on a regular basis for the past fifteen years. She claims
that she cannot return to Burma because she is a member of the Chin

-- 1 of 4 --

1 Kip Men does not challenge the IJ’s rulings with respect to her
Withholding of Removal and CAT claims.
2 See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
3 See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Even
if Kip Men had raised this issue on appeal, our review of an IJ’s credibility
determination is highly deferential. See Zhao v. Gonzales, --- F.3d ----, 2005
WL 590829, at *7 (5th Cir. March 15, 2005) (“We will not substitute our judgment
for that of the BIA or IJ with respect to the credibility of witnesses or
ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). The record here contains no basis for
overturning the IJ’s credibility determinations as to Kip Men.
2
ethnic minority and a Roman Catholic, groups that are persecuted by
the ruling military junta. Further, she claims that her role as a
leader in various Chin expatriate organizations in India and her
status as a human rights advocate will place her in danger if she
returns to Burma. Finally, she alleges that she is wanted by the
Burmese government for her involvement in these activities.
On appeal, Kip Men, argues that the IJ’s determination that
she is not eligible for asylum is not supported by substantial
evidence.1 In addition, she argues that the Immigration Judge
applied an incorrect and overly stringent standard in determining
that she was ineligible for asylum.
Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, we may review the
IJ’s decision.2 The IJ determined that Kip Men’s testimony was not
credible because it was inconsistent in several respects with facts
alleged in her application for asylum, and was not supported by
corroborating evidence. Kip Men has not challenged this
credibility determination on appeal. Thus, we will not review it.3
Absent Kip Men’s testimony, the only facts supporting her

-- 2 of 4 --

4 Zhao, 2005 WL 590829, at *8 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 203.13(b)(2)(iii).
6 Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193-94 (5th Cir. 2004).
3
application for asylum are her status as a Chin and a Roman
Catholic, and reports that the ruling military junta in Burma is
actively mistreating members of both these groups. In order to
establish a “well-founded fear of future persecution, an alien must
demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must be
objectively reasonable.”4 An applicant may establish that her
fears is objectively reasonable by proving either that she would be
singled out for persecution, or that she is a member of, inter
alia, a racial or religious group against which a pattern or
practice of persecution exists.5 An alien seeking asylum based on
a pattern of persecution must establish that she cannot avoid
persecution by relocating to another part of the country.6
Kip Men produced no credible evidence indicating that she
would be singled out for persecution if returned to Burma.
Although State Department country reports admitted at Kip Men’s
hearing indicate that Christians and Chins are subject to
mistreatment in Burma along with a number of other ethnic,
religious, and political minorities, these reports indicate that
the level of mistreatment varies from place to place, and that
minorities are frequently left alone if they are not somehow
connected with anti-government activity. Further, Kip Men has not

-- 3 of 4 --

7 See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304 (finding that in order to establish well-
founded fear of persecution, applicant for asylum must show that a reasonable
person in the same circumstances would fear persecution based on the grounds
enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) if deported).
4
produced evidence demonstrating that she could not escape
persecution by relocating away from areas of high ethnic and
religious conflict. Consequently we find that the IJ’s conclusion
that Kip Men does not qualify for asylum is supported by
substantial evidence.
In addition, based on our reading of the IJ’s opinion as a
whole, we find that the IJ did not apply an incorrect and
erroneously stringent standard when reviewing Kip Men’s
application. In order to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution, an applicant for asylum must show that a reasonable
person in the same circumstances would fear persecution based on
the grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) if deported.7
After reviewing the totality of the evidence, including Kip Men’s
testimony which was discounted as not credible, the IJ determined
that she was not in danger of persecution on any of the grounds
alleged in her application for asylum.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --