Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14730
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-420-124
RIGOBERTO FIGUERIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 20, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Rigoberto Figueroa-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The BIA’s denial was based on
alternative findings that Figueroa-Lopez’s testimony was not credible and that,
even if credible, it failed to demonstrate the required nexus between his feared
persecution and a statutorily protected ground. On appeal, Figueroa-Lopez argues
that the BIA erred because it incorrectly analyzed the claim using his fear of gang
recruitment and reprisal, rather than his membership in the Evangelical Christian
Church, as the basis for evaluating his membership in a recognized social group.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment unless the BIA
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir.
2007). When the BIA explicitly agrees with the findings of the IJ, we will review
the decision of both the BIA and the IJ as to those issues. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, the BIA does not expressly
adopt the IJ’s decision, to the extent the BIA agreed with the IJ, we will review
both. Id.
The BIA and the IJ must consider all evidence that an applicant has
submitted. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006).
However, where the BIA has given reasoned consideration to the petition and
2
Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 3 of 6
made adequate findings, we will not require that the BIA address specifically each
claim made by the petitioner or each piece of evidence presented. Id.
On appeal from the BIA’s decision, we review legal questions, including
whether the BIA gave reasoned consideration to an applicant’s claim, de novo. Id.
at 1374. Factual findings, including credibility determinations, are reviewed under
the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th
Cir. 2006). Under this highly deferential test, we affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation omitted). Factual findings will only be
reversed when the “record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may
support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the
administrative findings.” Id. (quotation omitted); see INA § 242(b)(4)(B), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We view “the record evidence in the light most favorable
to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that
decision.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255 (quotation omitted).
When the IJ makes an adverse credibility finding, the IJ must provide
“specific, cogent reasons” for the decision. Id. (quotation omitted). A credibility
determination may be based on the totality of the circumstances, including: (1) the
applicant’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness; (2) the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s account; (3) the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral
3
Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 4 of 6
statements; (4) the internal consistency of each statement; (5) the consistency of
the statements with other evidence; and (6) any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such
statements. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An adverse
credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or
falsehoods, regardless of whether they relate to the heart of an applicant’s claim.
Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255. We have held that even a single inconsistency can support
an adverse credibility determination. Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233, 1240
(11th Cir. 2010).
Even if credible, an applicant for asylum must meet the INA’s definition of
refugee. INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is defined as:
Any person who is outside any country of such person’s
nationality . . . who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable
or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion
INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Thus, to establish asylum
eligibility the applicant must, “with specific and credible evidence, demonstrate (1)
past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a well-founded fear
that the statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at
1257 (quotation omitted). The applicant must demonstrate that one of those
enumerated grounds “was or will be at least one central reason” for the alleged
persecution. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
4
Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 5 of 6
To the extent that Figueroa-Lopez’s arguments present a question of whether
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of his asylum claim, we deny the
petition for review. The record does not compel a finding either that he is credible
or that, if credible, he demonstrated the required nexus between his feared
persecution and a ground protected under the INA. Regarding his credibility,
Figueroa-Lopez’s testimony about his fear of persecution was inconsistent with his
sworn statement to border patrol officers that he came to the United States to work
and did not fear returning to Guatemala. Additionally, his testimony that he was
threatened by the Maras gang on August 29, 2012 was inconsistent with (1) his
statement at his credible fear interview that he was threatened on August 28, 2012;
and (2) the statement in his father’s affidavit that Figueroa-Lopez was subjected to
threats from multiple gangs, only one of which was the Maras. Given that even a
single inconsistency can support an adverse credibility determination, we see
nothing in the record that would compel a reversal.
Turning to the basis of his application for asylum, Figueroa-Lopez’s primary
argument is that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his claim because
it did not adequately consider evidence that he was persecuted on account of his
membership in the Evangelical Church. As an initial matter, this argument must
fail because prior to this petition Figueroa-Lopez never argued that his asylum
application was based on his membership in the Evangelical Church. Therefore,
5
Case: 15-14730 Date Filed: 10/20/2016 Page: 6 of 6
any failure to expressly address the argument is not a failure of reasoned
consideration. See Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374. Conversely, the BIA did sufficiently
address the evidence and arguments actually put forth by Figueroa-Lopez
regarding his religion as a basis for resisting gang recruitment and, accordingly,
gave the requisite consideration to the arguments raised and the evidence
presented. Id.
Moreover, substantial evidence, including Figueroa-Lopez’s testimony,
supports the BIA’s determination that the gangs threatened him with serious harm
or death because of his refusal to join them and because he reported them to the
police, not because he was an Evangelical Christian. Indeed, the letter from the
pastor of Figueroa-Lopez’s church failed to mention any other members that had
been threatened or harmed, and Figueroa-Lopez’s own testimony acknowledged
that he was the only one he knew of who had been threatened. Simply put, the
record does not compel a finding that one central reason for the gang members’
threats towards Figueroa-Lopez was his membership in the Evangelical Church.
See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
Upon review of the entire record on appeal, and after consideration of the
parties’ appellate briefs, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
6