[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 18, 2005
No. 04-16147
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A78-407-908
CABDIRIZAQ SAID SAMATAR,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 18, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cabdirizaq Said Samatar, a native and citizen of Somalia, through counsel,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA’s”) decision
affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of asylum under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) based on, among other things, an
adverse credibility determination.1 Because Samatar’s removal proceedings
commenced after April 1, 1997, the effective date of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.
3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) (“IIRIRA”), this case is governed by the permanent
provisions of the INA, as amended by IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S.
Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003).
Samatar argues that the IJ erred in denying his application for asylum
because he had shown past persecution and a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of his membership in a particular social group, namely, his
alleged membership in the Tumal clan.
When the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion, the
IJ’s decision became the final removal order subject to our review. See Mendoza
v. United States Attorney Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1284 n.1 (11th Cir. 2003).
To the extent that the IJ’s decision was based on a legal determination, our
review is de novo. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th
1
Samatar abandoned his claims for withholding of removal under the INA and protection
under the United Nations Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment by failing to raise any argument on these claims in his petition for
review. Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
Cir. 2004). The IJ’s factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial
evidence test, and we “must affirm the [IJ’s] decision if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation
omitted). A credibility determination is also reviewed under the substantial
evidence test, and we “may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the [IJ] with
respect to credibility findings.” D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818.
An alien bears the burden of proving that he is eligible for asylum. Id. If
credible, the alien’s testimony “‘may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof
without corroboration.’” Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1287 (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(b)). Indications of reliable testimony include consistency on direct
examination, consistency with the written application, and the absence of
embellishment as the applicant repeatedly recounts his story. See In re B-, 21 I&N
Dec. 66, 70 (BIA 1995). Cf. Dalide v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 387 F.3d 1335, 1343
(11th Cir. 2004) (affirming the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, which was
based upon its finding that the alien’s testimony conflicted with his answers to
interrogatories, affidavit, deposition, and other documentary evidence). “[A]n
adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of
an asylum application.” Forgue v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th
3
Cir. 2005). However, “an adverse credibility determination does not alleviate the
IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant.” Id. If an
applicant produces evidence beyond his own testimony, “it is not sufficient for the
IJ to rely solely on an adverse credibility determination in those instances.” Id.
Furthermore, “the IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility
finding.” Id. (quotation omitted).
In this case, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, as well as his finding that Samatar failed to produce
sufficient corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof to establish his
eligibility for asylum. The IJ presented specific, cogent reasons in support of his
adverse credibility determination, including (1) inconsistencies regarding
Samatar’s clan membership such as its relation to other clans and the primary
occupations of clan members; (2) inconsistencies regarding Samatar’s injuries
resulting from the alleged attack of Samatar and his family by the Bartira clan in
1997; and (3) inconsistencies regarding Samatar’s motivation for leaving Somalia.
The IJ also found that Samatar’s only corroborating evidence, an affidavit and two
photographs of his knee, was unreliable and not sufficient to sustain Samatar’s
burden of proof given the lack of credible testimony. Because we are not
4
compelled to reverse these determinations, we deny Samatar’s petition for review.
See D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818.
PETITION DENIED.
5