[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 5, 2005
No. 04-14579
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A79-417-252
JOEL ARTURO GONZALEZ-GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 5, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed without
opinion the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying the applications of
Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvadore, for asylum, withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“CAT”). Petitioner now petitions this court to review the BIA’s
decision.1 As indicated in the margin, see note 1, what this appeal boils down to is
whether substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s application for
asylum on the ground that the evidence he presented in support of his
application—namely, his own testimony—was not credible.2
An alien who arrives in or is present in the United States may apply for
asylum. See INA § 208(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). The Attorney General has
discretion to grant asylum if the alien meets the INA’s definition of a “refugee.”
See INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is:
1
In appealing the IJ’s decision to the BIA, Petitioner did not address the IJ’s denial of
withholding of removal or CAT protection. We therefore consider Petitioner to have abandoned
any challenge he may have to these two rulings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Al Hajjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F. 3d 1262, 1285 n. 14 (this court lacks jurisdiction when an alien fails to exhaust
his administrative rulings prior to judicial review) (citations omitted). Nor did Petitioner
address the denial of withholding of removal or CAT protection in his brief to us. The only issue
before us, therefore, concerns the denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum.
2
Where, as here, the BIA does not issue its own opinion but instead adopts the IJ’s
opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. D-Muhumed v. United States Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814,
818 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or,
in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in
which such person last habitually resided, and 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 . . . .
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (emphasis added).
The asylum applicant carries the burden of proving statutory “refugee”
status. See D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818. Uncorroborated but credible testimony
from the applicant alone may suffice to sustain the burden of proof for asylum. 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(a). Indications of reliable testimony include consistency on direct
examination, consistency with the written application for asylum, and the absence
of embellishment as the applicant repeatedly recounts his story. Matter of B-, 21 I
& N Dec. 66, 70 (BIA 1995). The weaker the applicant’s testimony, the greater the
need for corroborative evidence. See Matter of Y-B-, 21 I & N Dec. 1136, 1139
(BIA 1998). A single inconsistency may be sufficient to sustain an adverse
credibility finding if the inconsistency is related to the alien’s basis for his fear and
goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043
(9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, if the IJ provides specific examples of vague,
inconsistent, and implausible statements by the alien, and the alien does not
3
provide corroborating evidence to bolster the weaknesses in his testimony, an
adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1042-44.
Petitioner entered the United States at Miami International Airport on
August 12, 2001, using a counterfeit Guatemalan passport that he had purchased
for $6,000. In a sworn statement he gave the immigration inspector that day,
Petitioner stated that he had come to the United States to seek employment and a
better life for his family and that his only fear upon being returned to El Salvador
was that he owed a great deal of money to the persons who had supplied him with
the false passport. This statement differed greatly from what he said in his
subsequent asylum application and his sworn testimony, in which he asserted that
he feared some delinquents who had attempted to extort money from his brother
and were to be released from jail. Testifying before the IJ, Petitioner initially said
that he learned of the impending release in August 1999, then changed his story
and said that he learned of such release in August 2001. It is unclear whether
Petitioner gave these patently inconsistent statements because he was confused or
simply untruthful. In any event, he provided no evidence to corroborate either
date. In fact, the affidavit of his brother gave yet another date for when Petitioner
learned of the impending release of the delinquents, September or November 2001.
This affidavit further undermined Petitioner’s credibility.
4
The IJ denied Petitioner’s application on the ground that his testimony
regarding the critical elements of his claim for asylum claim was not believable.
We cannot fault the IJ for doing so. In sum, because substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s decision, we do not disturb it.
PETITION DENIED.
5