USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12116
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A208-696-241
PERDRO RAMON ZAPATA-RIVERO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 1, 2021)
Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7
Perdro Zapata-Rivero petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum
pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
First, Zapata-Rivero argues that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding,
in denying him asylum and withholding of removal, was not supported by substantial
evidence. Second, he argues that the BIA did not fully consider his claim that the
Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding should not have automatically
foreclosed CAT relief.
In petitions for review of BIA decisions, we review factual determinations
under the substantial evidence test and conclusions of law de novo. Gonzalez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). When the BIA agrees with the
reasoning of the Immigration Judge, we review both decisions. Id. The substantial
evidence test is “highly deferential,” and 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.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir.
2009) (quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is
supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7
considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To reverse, the record must
compel a contrary conclusion, and the mere fact that the record may support a
different conclusion is not sufficient. Id.
An alien has the burden to prove that he is eligible for asylum and for
withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(a), 1208.16(b). For asylum, an alien
must establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed protected
ground, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily protected ground will cause
future persecution. Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2010).
Protected grounds include “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B).
For withholding of removal, an alien must show “that [his] life or freedom
would be threatened . . . because of” a statutorily protected ground, and it is more
likely than not that he would be persecuted. Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724,
728 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Because the standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than the standard for asylum, an alien who
unsuccessfully applies for asylum cannot obtain withholding of removal. Id.;
Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).
To establish his eligibility for relief, an alien must offer “credible, direct, and
specific evidence in the record.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (quotation marks
omitted). The IJ determines whether an alien is credible. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii),
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 4 of 7
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); INA § 241(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). In
doing so, it must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes the
alien’s demeanor, inconsistencies between his testimony and prior statements, and
inconsistencies between his testimony and other evidence in the record.
INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
An Immigration Judge may make an adverse credibility finding even if the
inconsistencies do not go to the heart of the claim. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d
1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006). An “extremely detailed adverse credibility
determination alone may be sufficient to support the IJ’s denial of” relief. D-
Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004). When making an
adverse credibility determination, the Immigration Judge must offer “specific,
cogent reasons,” and must consider any additional evidence introduced. Forgue,
401 F.3d at 1287. To be considered an adverse-credibility determination, the
Immigration Judge or BIA must state explicitly that the applicant’s testimony was
not credible. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005).
An alien who fails to argue an issue in his initial brief to us abandons it, and
we will not review the claim. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2
(11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, we lack jurisdiction to hear claims that were not raised
and exhausted before the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d
1247, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2006); INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We may
4
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 5 of 7
deny a petition based on an Immigration Judge’s alternative holding if (1) the BIA
expressly addressed that holding, and (2) the government asked us to rely on it. See
cf. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining
that we usually may affirm on any grounds supported by the record, but declining to
do so when the government did not argue in support of the alternative findings in its
brief, and the BIA did not adopt the Immigration Judge’s opinion); see also cf.
Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2013) (declining to rely
on an alternative holding when the BIA did not consider the issue).
As an initial matter, Zapata-Rivero has only petitioned for review of the
Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. Thus, he has abandoned any
challenge to the Immigration Judge’s and BIA’s alternative findings that his
evidence, even if credible, was weak and uncorroborated, and therefore, he did not
meet his burden for withholding for removal or asylum. In any event, his claim fails
because substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility
finding, as the Immigration Judge explicitly stated that it had considered the totality
of Zapata-Rivero’s circumstances, and it specifically noted five inconsistencies
between Zapata-Rivero’s testimony and the other evidence in the record.1
1
To the extent that Rivero has argued that both the Immigration Judge and
BIA erred in relying upon statements that he made during an interview at the
Miami airport, he failed to exhaust that claim before the BIA, so we lack
jurisdiction to review it.
5
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 6 of 7
An alien seeking protection under CAT must establish that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.
Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, he must show that the torture would be by or with the acquiescence of
the government. Id. The regulation establishing the burden of proof states that “[t]he
testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of
proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). That language is identical
in the regulations establishing the burden for asylum and withholding of removal
claims. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (asylum claims) and § 208.16(b)
(withholding of removal claims) with § 208.16(c)(2).
We have not explicitly stated that an adverse credibility determination bars
CAT relief. However, in Lyashchynska v. U.S. Attorney General, we upheld the
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on an Immigration
Judge’s adverse credibility determination. 676 F.3d 962, 964, 967-69 (11th Cir.
2012). In directly addressing this issue, the Ninth Circuit has explained that, “when
a petitioner’s claims under the CAT are based on the same statements that the BIA
determined to be not credible in the asylum context, the agency may rely upon the
same credibility determination in denying both the asylum and CAT claims.” Singh
v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (persuasive) (quotation marks and
alterations omitted); but see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155 (2d Cir. 2006)
6
USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 7 of 7
(persuasive) (“[A]n adverse credibility determination made in the asylum context
should not necessarily affect the BIA's consideration of the alien's CAT claim.”).
In reviewing an alien’s appeal, the BIA must give reasoned consideration to
the arguments and evidence. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224,
1232 (11th Cir. 2013). When reviewing for reasoned consideration, we “inquire
only whether the [BIA] considered the issues raised and announced its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought
and not merely reacted.” Id. (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
As an initial matter, Zapata-Rivero has not petitioned for review of the
Immigration Judge and BIA’s alternative findings that he provided weak evidence
and failed to prove his eligibility for CAT relief. Thus, he has abandoned any
challenge to this finding. Regardless of his abandonment, his claim fails, as the BIA
explicitly addressed his claim and cited authority in rejecting it. Thus, the BIA gave
reasoned consideration to Zapata-Rivero’s argument.
PETITION DENIED.
7