Ye Min Oo v. Gonzales

concurring.

I concur, with one caveat. Because Oo did not appeal the withholding and Convention Against Torture issues to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See, e.g., Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 1066 , 1079 n. 5 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, as I see it, this disposition speaks to asylum issues only. My concurrence is based upon that understanding.

MEMORANDUM *

*590 Petitioner Ye Min Oo, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding that resulted in the denial of his petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. In his asylum application and at a hearing before the Immigration Judge, Oo sought relief based on having been twice arrested, interrogated, and beaten by Burmese security forces and having received two letters demanding that he join a government controlled organization dedicated to countering the influence of a pro-democracy organization to which he was loyal.

Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and may not be reversed unless the evidence compels the conclusion that the Immigration Judge’s finding is in error. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). However, the Immigration Judge must provide “a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000) (quotations, alterations, and citations omitted).…