[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12131 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEB 14, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A088-341-648
ALEXANDR MYSSIK,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 14, 2011)
Before BLACK, MARTIN, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexandr Myssik, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). The IJ determined that Myssik was not a credible witness and denied all
relief. After review, we deny Myssik’s petition.
I.
As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of
withholding of removal and CAT relief because Myssik did not exhaust those
claims before the BIA. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247,
1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006). Therefore, we dismiss Myssik’s petition to the extent
that it raises claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Our review is
limited to the denial of Myssik’s application for asylum.
II.
“We review the decision of the [BIA], and we review the decision of the
Immigration Judge to the extent that the [BIA] expressly adopted the opinion of
the Immigration Judge.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350
(11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). “To the extent that the BIA adopts the
IJ’s reasoning, we review the IJ’s decision as well.” Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
572 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2009). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s
reasoning, we will review both decisions. We review the BIA’s and IJ’s
2
conclusions of law de novo, but we review findings of fact, including credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence to support them. Id.; Chen v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006).
“Our review for substantial evidence is highly deferential.” Kazemzadeh,
577 F.3d at 1351. “[W]e view the record evidence in the light most favorable to
the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.”
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We must
“affirm the [BIA’s] decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted).
Myssik challenges the IJ and BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
When an adverse credibility determination is made “the burden shifts to [the
applicant] to show the credibility finding is not supported by ‘specific, cogent
reasons’ or was not based on substantial evidence.” Chen, 463 F.3d at 1232.
Myssik contends that the IJ and BIA’s adverse credibility finding was not based
on substantial evidence.
In finding Myssik not credible, the IJ and BIA both pointed out
inconsistencies between Myssik’s asylum application and hearing testimony. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (explaining that the “trier of fact may base a
3
credibility determination on . . . any inaccuracies or falsehoods in [the applicant’s]
statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor”). Myssik
listed “43 Panfilova Pereulok” as his place of residence from 1997 to 2007 in his
asylum application. However, Myssik testified at his hearing that he moved in
with his grandmother in 1997 after being forced to sell that property to a corrupt
police officer named Mr. Asilvakov. Myssik also stated in his asylum application
that he was summoned by a KNB officer the day after he criticized a foundation
operated by the daughter of the president of Kazakhstan on a television program.
At his hearing, he testified that he was summoned the same day.
The IJ and BIA also based its adverse credibility finding on Myssik’s failure
to produce corroborating evidence. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231 (explaining that
the denial of asylum relief “can be supported solely by an adverse credibility
determination, especially if the alien fails to produce corroborating evidence”).
The IJ and BIA noted that Myssik did not submit documents showing that he sold
“43 Panfilova Pereulok” to Mr. Asilvakov in 1997. Nor did Myssik produce
documents establishing that he appeared on a television program or that he was
detained by the KNB.
After thorough review, we hold that the IJ and the BIA’s specific, cogent
4
reasons for making the adverse credibility determination are supported by the
evidence, and nothing in the record would compel a reasonable factfinder to
reverse the IJ and BIA’s finding. See id. at 1230–31 (explaining that “the [BIA’s]
decision can be reversed only if the evidence compels a reasonable factfinder to
find otherwise” (quotation marks omitted)). Myssik’s argument to the contrary is
without merit. For that reason, we deny Myssik’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5