[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 19, 2005
No. 05-12986 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A77-570-912
HOOD KATENDE,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 19, 2005)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hood Katende petitions for review of the final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals that affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge to deny
Katende’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Katende argues that the BIA and IJ should not have
found his testimony incredible. We deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Katende, a citizen of Uganda, entered the United States in December 1998 as
a non-immigrant visitor. Katende filed an application for asylum in October 1999,
and, in December 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a notice
to appear that charged Katende with overstaying his visa. See 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(B).
In his application for asylum, Katende alleged that he had suffered a series
of arrests, beatings, and detentions at the hands of officials of Uganda. He also
alleged that he had been a member of the Allied Democratic Front (ADF), but,
after he left the organization, its members threatened his life. He argued that these
events established either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution, which entitled him to asylum. At his hearing before the IJ, Katende
presented five primary sources of evidence: (1) his testimony at the hearing, (2)
his written statement in his asylum application, (3) statements he made during his
asylum interview, (4) a letter from a physician who treated him on his arrival to the
2
United States, and (5) testimony by his wife, who also sought asylum under
Katende’s application. The IJ noted that Katende presented no evidence of his
persecution other than his testimony and the testimony of his wife.
The IJ found that several inconsistencies in the Katende’s testimony
undermined his credibility: (1) Katende testified that he was first arrested in May
1994 but, in his asylum interview, he had stated the arrest occurred in December
1995; (2) Katende testified that he was cut by a bayonet during his first detention,
but he did not describe this injury in either his asylum application or his asylum
interview; (3) Katende testified that a scar on his left knee was caused by a truck
accident that allowed him to escape following his third arrest, but he told his
physician that the scar was caused by a knife wound inflicted while he was
detained; (4) Katende testified that, during his second arrest, he let the police into
his room, but his wife testified that the police broke down the door; (5) Katende
testified that his third arrest occurred while he was at work and the police escorted
him to his house to conduct a search, but his wife testified that she was home when
the house was searched and did not see Katende there; (6) Katende told his
physician that he had been raped while in detention, but Katende did not testify
that he had been raped; and (7) Katende testified that when he joined ADF he did
not know the group used innocent civilians as human shields, but his educational
background and political activity should have made him aware of this practice.
3
Because “[t]he credibility of [Katende] is of extreme importance in assessing the
claim,” the IJ concluded that Katende had failed to meet his burden to establish
past persecution or well-founded fear of future prosecution. The IJ denied
Katende’s application.
Katende appealed the decision of the IJ to the BIA. The BIA adopted and
affirmed the decision of the IJ. The BIA concluded that the “record reflects that
the Immigration Judge cited an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding
and that [Katende] on appeal has not provided an adequate explanation for the
shortcomings in his case sufficient to overcome that adverse credibility finding.”
The BIA dismissed the appeal, and Katende petitioned this Court for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When the BIA adopts the opinion of the IJ, this Court reviews the decision
of both the BIA and the IJ. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir.
2001). “While we consider the BIA’s interpretation of applicable statutes de novo,
we are also obliged to defer to the BIA’s interpretation if that interpretation is
reasonable.” Id. (internal punctuation and citations omitted). “A factual
determination by the BIA that an alien is statutorily ineligible for asylum or
withholding is reviewed under the substantial evidence test,” id., and “the
reviewing court must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is ‘supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id.
4
(quoting Lorisme v. INS, 129 F.3d 1441, 1444-45 (11th Cir. 1997)). “Credibility
determinations likewise are reviewed under the substantial evidence test.” D-
Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004). “[T]he test is
highly deferential, and [] we must defer to the BIA unless a reasonable factfinder
would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” Al Najjar,
257 F.3d at 1284 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Katende argues that the IJ and BIA erroneously found his testimony was not
credible. An adverse credibility finding is not itself a ground for denying relief,
but the finding may support the conclusion that an alien has failed to meet his
burden to prove the statutory requirements for relief. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286-88 (11th Cir. 2005). “[A]n adverse credibility
determination does not alleviate the IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced
by an asylum applicant,” but “[i]f the applicant produces no evidence other than his
testimony, an adverse credibility determination is alone sufficient to support the
denial of an asylum application.” Id. at 1287. The only evidence that Katende
presented involved his personal accounts of the alleged persecution.
The IJ’s finding of adverse credibility was supported by substantial
evidence. The IJ identified seven significant discrepancies in the evidence
presented by Katende. The BIA focused on three discrepancies—the date of
5
Katende’s first arrest, the nature of Katende’s injuries, and the allegations of
rape—and found them sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding. We
agree with the IJ and the BIA that these events were central to Katende’s claim of
persecution; the inconsistencies in Katende’s testimony support an adverse
credibility finding.
Katende further argues that “the IJ relied on selective [inconsistent] portions
of the record while ignoring other [consistent] portions.” We disagree. The IJ and
BIA did not focus on minor details but on substantial discrepancies central to
Katende’s alleged persecution. The period in which Katende was first persecuted,
the manner in which he was injured, and whether he was raped are significant
episodes that one would expect a person to recall consistently. We cannot say the
record compels the conclusion that Katende established entitlement to any form of
relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
We deny Katende’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
6