Jia Lan Shi v. US Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAR 30, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-14267
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A095-709-929
JIA LAN SHI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(March 30, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Jia Lan Shi (“Shi”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic

-- 1 of 4 --

of China, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her
claim for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et
seq. Shi argues that she established a well-founded fear of future persecution1
based on her practice of Falun Gong and that the BIA’s and IJ’s finding to the
contrary is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA has
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, in which case, we review the IJ’s decision as
well. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). We review factual
determinations, including credibility determinations, under the substantial
evidence test, and will affirm the decision if it is supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record as a whole. Kueviakoe v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009). Once an adverse credibility
finding is made, the burden is on the applicant to show that the credibility decision
was not supported by “specific, cogent reasons” or was not based on substantial
evidence. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Under this test, we view all evidence in the
The IJ and BIA also denied Shi’s request for withholding of removal and relief under the1
United Nations Convention Against Torture. Shi petitions for review of only the denial of her
application for asylum.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

light most favorable to the agency’s decision and will reverse the BIA’s findings
“only when the record compels” it. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027
(11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Thus, even if the evidence could support multiple
conclusions, we will affirm the agency’s decision unless there is no reasonable
basis for the decision. Id. at 1029.
Shi has not challenged the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determination
in her petition. Even a liberal construction of Shi’s brief compels the conclusion
that Shi has waived her challenge to the adverse credibility findings made by the IJ
and BIA. See N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 1998)
(“Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation
to authorities are generally deemed waived.”). Alternatively, assuming Shi has not
waived her challenge, she falls well short of her burden to demonstrate that the
credibility decision was not supported by the record. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at
1287 (holding that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence). Because the
BIA’s and IJ’s adverse credibility findings have not been challenged, we conclude
that the BIA’s conclusion that Shi has not established a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on her practice of Falun Gong is supported by the record. See
id. (“[A]n adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the
3

-- 3 of 4 --

denial of an asylum application.”). Therefore, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --