Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14906
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-575-076
OLEKSIY VIKTOROVYCH OKHREMENKO,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 8, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Oleksiy Okhremenko seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 2 of 12
under section 208(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a).
Okhremenko contends that the IJ’s determination that his testimony was not
credible is not supported by substantial evidence.
I.
Okhremenko, a native and citizen of Ukraine, first came to the United States
on June 7, 2006 as part of a 3-month student summer program. He returned to
Ukraine to study at a university, but came back to this country on May 24, 2007 to
participate again in the student summer program. He then returned to Ukraine to
complete his degree and, after graduating from the university, came to the United
States a third time, on June 12, 2008, on a J-1 visa.
Okhremenko has applied for asylum, contending that he has been persecuted
in the past because he is gay and that he fears future persecution based on his
sexual orientation if he returns to Ukraine. At his asylum hearing, Okhremenko
testified that he began a relationship with another man, Oleksiy Pereshlyuha, when
he started attending the university in Kherson, Ukraine. During their time in
Kherson, Okhremenko and Pereshlyuha often went to the Beau Monde, which was
known as a bar where gay people were welcome. Okhremenko testified that
although he knew that Beau Monde’s customers were sometimes the targets of
violence because of their sexual orientation, he did not believe all of the stories he
2
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 3 of 12
had heard and he continued to visit Beau Monde with Pereshlyuha because he did
not want to spend his whole life in his apartment.
In March 2008 Okhremenko and Pereshlyuha visited Beau Monde to
celebrate Okhremenko receiving his visa to return to the United States that coming
summer. When they were walking up to the bar, they noticed a group of skinheads
standing outside the entrance and yelling insults and threatening to kill them
because of their sexual orientation. A couple of hours later, as they were leaving
the bar, Okhremenko and Pereshlyuha were attacked and beaten by what appeared
to be the same group of skinheads who had insulted and threatened them earlier
that night. The attackers hit them with baseball bats and yelled insults and threats
related to their sexual orientation. After physically assaulting Okhremenko and
Pereshlyuha, the skinheads stole the men’s wallets, cell phones, and jewelry. Both
Okhremenko and Pereshlyuha were seriously injured. Okhremenko had a fractured
right hand, two broken ribs, and head trauma. He was hospitalized for three
weeks. When Okhremenko reported the attack to the police, an officer told him
that if he did not want to be beaten again, he should not present himself in public
as a homosexual.
To corroborate his testimony, Okhremenko submitted hospital records dated
April 15, 2008, the day he was released, in the form of a one paragraph summary
of the medical treatment he received after he was attacked. He also submitted the
3
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 4 of 12
2007, 2008, and 2009 Human Rights Reports for Ukraine from the United States
Department of State. All three reports noted that Ukrainian politicians commonly
make statements indicating hostility toward homosexuals. The 2008 report stated
that homosexuals in Ukraine suffered from “societal stigma and discrimination,”
and although some Ukrainians were becoming more open about their
homosexuality, many Ukrainians remained “intolerant” toward homosexuals.
Okhremenko also provided supporting documentation in the form of letters from
friends and family that corroborated his homosexuality and news articles
describing the hostility of the Ukrainian government toward homosexuals.
The IJ denied Okhremenko’s petition for asylum, concluding that his
testimony was not credible because it contained several inconsistencies and
because it was not supported by corroborating evidence that was reasonably
available. The BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and reasoning and affirmed the
denial of asylum. This is Okhremenko’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision.
II.
We review the BIA’s and IJ’s factual findings, including credibility
determinations, under the substantial evidence test. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401
F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). Under that test, we must “affirm the IJ’s
decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.” Id. (alteration and quotation marks omitted). “In
4
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 5 of 12
determining an applicant’s credibility, an Immigration Judge must consider the
totality of the circumstances, including the applicant’s demeanor, the inherent
plausibility of the applicant’s story, and the consistency among the applicant’s
written and oral statements and other evidence of record.” Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 621 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2010). The IJ may base his credibility
determination on any inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods, without regard
to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When the IJ makes an adverse credibility determination, there
must be “specific, cogent reasons” to support it. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
Moreover, an adverse credibility determination may not be “based solely on
speculation and conjecture.” Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th
Cir. 2009). Because the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, we review both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision. Id. at 1275.
III.
In determining that Okhremenko’s testimony was not credible, the IJ stated
that Okhremenko “omitted from his [asylum application] any mention that the
skinheads or other persons threatened him or anyone else during the times that they
attended [Beau Monde].” The IJ’s statement contradicts the record. In his asylum
application, Okhremenko detailed three incidents of “harm or mistreatment,”
including the fact that he was attacked at Beau Monde. The application states:
5
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 6 of 12
“The third time it happened on the 25th in March, 2008 when several skinheads
attacked me and my boyfriend Oleksiy Pereshlyuha near the night club ‘Bomond.’
They cruelly beat both of us. All the above noted cases are mistreatment because
of my sexual orientation.” The IJ’s finding of an omission from Okhremenko’s
asylum application misstates the record and is not supported by substantial
evidence. See id. at 1278 (stating that the BIA properly reversed the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination when the IJ’s decision misstated “a significant portion” of
the asylum applicant’s testimony).
The IJ also based his adverse credibility determination on the fact that
Okhremenko testified that before he and Pereshlyuha were attacked, he did not
personally know anyone who had been attacked at Beau Monde, but he also
testified that before the attack Pereshlyuha had been beaten outside his apartment
by someone who recognized him as a customer of Beau Monde. According to the
IJ and the BIA, that testimony is inconsistent. The finding of inconsistency is not
supported by the record and is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.
See id. (reversing the IJ’s adverse credibility determination when the record did not
support the IJ’s finding that the asylum applicant’s testimony was inconsistent).
Okhremenko’s testimony about whether he personally knew anyone who
had been attacked at Beau Monde was in response to a question about whether he
6
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 7 of 12
thought that Beau Monde was a dangerous place. At his asylum hearing,
Okhremenko testified as follows:
Q: You indicated that before you were attacked, that people had told
you about the dangers around Beau Monde, right? People leaving and
being attacked?
A: Yes.
Q: So you’d heard stories about that prior to when you were
attacked?
A: Yes, I [heard] the stories.
Q: And did you believe the stories?
A: Because I didn’t know personally anyone who got beaten, and
people were just telling stories that some group is trying to beat some
of us. They beat a couple people. I just didn’t believe that and I just
keep, kept going to Beau Monde.
Q: So despite these stories of being beaten, as well as the fact that
sometimes people yelled at people that entered the club, it was still
considered a safe place, as you described it, for homosexuals?
A: I was thinking that this place was still safe, because inside, that
was when I felt safety.
Read in context, Okhremenko’s testimony was not that he did not personally know
anybody who had been attacked anywhere; it was that he did not personally know
anybody who had been attacked at Beau Monde. That is entirely consistent with
his later testimony that Pereshlyuha was attacked outside his apartment by
someone who recognized him as a customer of Beau Monde.
The IJ also found that Okhremenko’s testimony was “seemingly
inconsistent” in that Okhremenko, “noting that persons identified with the Beau
Monde would be singled out for harm, such as the beating suffered by
[Pereshlyuha] . . ., would continue to go to the club, nonetheless.” The IJ’s finding
7
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 8 of 12
is contradicted by Okhremenko’s testimony explaining why he continued to go to
Beau Monde even though he thought it might make him the target of violence.
Okhremenko testified as follows:
Q: So if you knew that [Pereshlyuha] had been beaten just because
he’d been seen at [Beau Monde] . . ., then you certainly couldn’t have
felt it was safe to be going in there in early 2008, right?
A: It’s like I told before, I can’t spend my whole life . . . in my
apartment. I had to go outside, I had to be myself. I didn’t want to, I
didn’t want to be anyone else, I want to be myself, and I liked going
over there. It was a place that I wanted to be, only one place in that
city. . . .
Okhremenko’s testimony was that he continued to go to Beau Monde even though
he knew it might cause people to target him for violence because he liked going
there, it was a place that welcomed gay people, and despite the danger it was better
than the alternative of spending his whole life in his apartment. That is not
inconsistent, and the IJ’s finding that the testimony was inconsistent is not a
specific, cogent reason that supports an adverse credibility determination. See id.
at 1278 (holding that an IJ cannot base an adverse credibility determination on his
“personal perceptions about the reasonableness of [a person’s] actions”).
In making his adverse credibility determination, the IJ also determined that
Okhremenko’s testimony that he had been attacked because of his sexual
orientation was implausible given the fact that his attackers stole his and his
boyfriend’s personal belongings and that his attackers were drunk at the time they
beat him up. But the IJ did not give specific reasons for rejecting Okhremenko’s
8
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 9 of 12
testimony about his attackers’ motives. Instead, the IJ merely stated that
Okhremenko’s testimony was “undermined by the overall lack of evidence in the
case.” Okhremenko testified, however, that his attackers were yelling offensive
language that referenced his homosexuality when they beat him up, and the IJ’s
determination does not account for that testimony. The fact that Okhremenko and
Pereshlyuha were robbed is not a cogent reason to conclude that they were not
attacked and robbed because of their sexual orientation, and it therefore is not a
sufficient reason to support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The IJ further noted that Okhremenko had twice returned to Ukraine after
visiting the United States in spite of the fact that he testified “that he had suffered
general societal fears, intolerance and discrimination since about age 14.” The IJ’s
finding, however, does not take into account the fact that both of those times were
before Okhremenko was severely beaten outside Beau Monde. The record shows
that Okhremenko did not fear persecution if he returned to the Ukraine until after
he was attacked and severely beaten. Moreover, Okhremenko’s testimony
indicated that over time he became increasingly comfortable appearing in public
with his boyfriend and otherwise publicly associating himself with the gay
community, both of which would make it more likely that he would be persecuted
if he returned to Ukraine. The IJ’s conclusion to the contrary is not supported by
substantial evidence.
9
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 10 of 12
The IJ also discounted Okhremenko’s credibility based on the fact that he
did not provide two forms of corroborating evidence: detailed medical records to
document his three-week hospital stay and testimony from Pereshlyuha. As an
initial matter, we note that an applicant for asylum is not required to present
evidence to corroborate his testimony; he can be granted asylum based on his
testimony alone, if it is credible. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (“The testimony of the
applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without
corroboration.”). We also note that Okhremenko’s testimony was not entirely
without corroboration, as he submitted Country Reports that detail the stigma that
homosexuals face in Ukraine, letters from his parents, and a one paragraph
summary from the hospital that treated him summarizing his injuries and the
medical treatment he received after he was attacked.
The IJ dismissed that corroborating evidence and concluded that
Okhremenko’s testimony was not credible because it was implausible that
Okhremenko would not be able to obtain detailed medical records from his three-
week hospital stay. The IJ stated: “It seems reasonable that respondent’s parents
would be able to obtain some additional medical information regarding the
respondent’s alleged lengthy stay in the hospital.” That assertion is unsupported
by any evidence in the record and ignores Okhremenko’s testimony that the
hospital would only release his medical records to him personally. The IJ’s finding
10
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 11 of 12
to the contrary is sheer speculation, and “[i]t is appropriate for us to reverse when a
credibility determination is based solely on speculation and conjecture.” Tang, 578
F.3d at 1278; see also Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 493 (11th Cir. 2013).
The same holds true with respect to the fact that Pereshlyuha did not testify
in support of Okhremenko’s petition for asylum. Okhremenko testified that he and
Pereshlyuha had broken up and were no longer in contact with each other, but the
IJ discounted that testimony based on his own speculation and conjecture that
Okhremenko could have obtained “some kind of letter, affidavit, or other
supporting documents from his boyfriend to bolster his case.”
In light of the concerns we have about the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, we vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this case to the BIA so
that the BIA or the IJ can reevaluate Okhremenko’s credibility in light of this
opinion. See Tang, 578 F.3d at 1281 (vacating the IJ’s and BIA’s decision in part
because of “concerns” about their adverse credibility determination and remanding
for further consideration). In remanding this case, we express no opinion about
whether Okhremenko’s testimony should be found to be credible or about whether
Okhremenko has met his burden of showing that he is entitled to asylum. If, on
remand, the BIA or IJ conclude that Okhremenko’s testimony is not credible, they
should provide “specific, cogent reasons” that are supported by the record and that
are not based on speculation or conjecture. See id. at 1276–77. And regardless of
11
Case: 12-14906 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 12 of 12
what the BIA or IJ conclude about Okhremenko’s credibility, they must consider
all the evidence he introduced to determine whether he has met his burden of
proof. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (“Of course, an adverse credibility
determination does not alleviate the IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced
by an asylum applicant. That is, the IJ must still consider all evidence introduced
by the applicant.”)
PETITION GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
12