[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12340 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 10, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A-095-223-045
ARTAN HULEJ,
MARJANE HULEJ,
a.k.a. Majane Hulej,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 10, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied petitioners’ application
for asylum and ordered their removal to Albania.1 Petitioners now seek review of
that decision in this court.2 Their brief presents one issue for review: whether
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the testimony petitioner Artan
Hulej gave before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in support of petitioners’ asylum
application was not credible.
We review the BIA’s decision as the decision of the agency “except to the
extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d
1228, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). “Insofar as the Board adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we
review the IJ’s decision as well.” Al Najjar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1262,
1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum
rests solely on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. As such, we limit our review to
that finding. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007).
A credibility finding is a finding of fact reviewed under the substantial
1
Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the United States using false
passports and visas in October 2001. Petitioner Artan Hulej is the lead petitioner for Marjane
Hulej,
2
The BIA denied petitioners withholding of removal and protection under the U. N.
Convention Against Torture as well as their application for asylum. In their brief to this court,
they only challenge the asylum decision. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a petitioner abandons an issue by failing to offer argument
on that issue).
2
evidence test; hence, we will reverse such finding “only if the evidence compels a
reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Id. at 1230-31 (quotation omitted).
Under this highly deferential standard of review, we may not reweigh the evidence
and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the agency’s finding. Forgue
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005).
To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien bears the burden of showing
with “credible, direct, and specific evidence” that he is a “refugee” within the
meaning of the INA. Id. at 1286-87 (citation omitted). The alien may meet this
burden by showing either (1) past persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; or (2) a
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of one of the above protected
grounds. Id. at 1286; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b).
The agency’s denial of asylum can rest “solely [on] an adverse credibility
determination, especially if the alien fails to produce corroborating evidence.”
Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. However, if the alien produces corroborating evidence,
the IJ must consider it. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. The IJ must state “specific,
cogent reasons” for an adverse credibility finding, and the burden is then shifted to
the alien to show that those reasons are not supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding where the alien failed
3
to mention details of his involvement with a political party in his asylum
application and interview, raised these details for the first time at his merits
hearing, and failed to produce corroborating evidence. Id. at 1287-88. We have
affirmed an adverse credibility determination that was based on the agency’s
finding that the alien’s testimony conflicted with prior answers given in an
affidavit, interrogatories, and other evidence. Dailide v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 387 F.3d
1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the testimony
of Artan Hulej was not credible, and petitioners have not shown that the record
compels a contrary conclusion. During his credible fear interview with an asylum
officer, he stated, in response to the question whether he belonged to a political
group, that he “liked the Democratic party, but . . . was not a member.” He denied
he had been harmed in Albania. He came to the United States because, as he put
it, “farming . . . could hardly keep us alive.” He chose the United States for refuge
because he had “a chance to come here with the [fraudulent] documents.” Asked
whether anyone in Albania had harmed or threatened him, he answered, “No.”
In his testimony before the IJ, Hulej told a different story. He was a
member of the Democratic Party, having joined it in 1993 at age 13, and he
participated “in every meeting.” His political activity in the Party escalated until,
4
in his early twenties, he became “a leader of the youth forum . . . a member of the
council . . . and . . . a representative for the Democratic Party during the election of
[2001].” His candidate won the election on July 15, 2001, and his party is now in
power in Albania.
The material inconsistences between Hulej’s credible fear interview and his
testimony before the IJ were numerous. His contradictory statements about
Democratic Party membership and activity are mere examples. The documentary
evidence petitioner presented did nothing to enhance Hulej’s credibility.
Accordingly, suffice it to say that the evidence supporting the agency’s adverse
credibility finding was substantial.
PETITION DENIED.
5