conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001).
The fact that, as here, a petitioner’s testimony is deemed credible is not
determinative. The BIA “may require documentary evidence to support a claim, even
from otherwise credible applicants, to meet their burden of proof.” Gao, 299 F.3d at 272
(citing Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 2001)). In this case, the IJ did
not merely deny Shardar’s claim because of the absence of corroborating evidence.
Rather, the documentary evidence that was presented conflicted with Shardar’s
contention that the demonstration was peaceful.
As the IJ noted, there is a distinction between persecution and prosecution. “As a
general matter, . . . fear of prosecution for violations of ‘fairly administered laws’
does not itself qualify one as a ‘refugee’ or make one eligible for withholding of
deportation.” Chang v. I.N.S., 119 F.3d 1055, 1060 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
However, fear of prosecution, even under generally applicable laws, may constitute
grounds for asylum or withholding of removal. See id. “[I]f the prosecution is
motivated by one of the enumerated factors, such as political opinion, and if the
punishment under the law is sufficiently serious to constitute persecution, then the
prosecution under the law of general applicability can justify asylum or withholding of
deportation.” Li Wu Lin v. I.N.S., 238 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Chang, 119
F.3d at 1061); see also Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that
there are “ two exceptions to the general rule that prosecution does not amount to