[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
_________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 27, 2006
No. 05-15270
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
__________________________
Agency No. A79-443-081
BESIM KACAKU,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
______________________
(June 27, 2006)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Besim Kacaku, a citizen and native of Albania, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration of Appeals (BIA), which
affirmed without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of Petitioner’s asylum
application.1 We deny the petition.
Petitioner challenges the IJ’s determination that he was not credible. We
review the IJ’s findings of fact under the “substantial evidence” test: 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) (citation omitted).2 “To reverse the IJ’s fact
findings, we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.”
Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). We also
review the IJ’s credibility determinations under the “substantial evidence” test. D-
Muhumed v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004). And on
credibility determinations, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the IJ.
Id. An adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the
1
Petitioner also was denied withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. But Petitioner now only presents argument on his asylum claim: he
has abandoned the other claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2
(11th Cir. 2005).
2
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion: we review the IJ’s decision as the final
agency determination. See Forgue v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1285 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
denial of asylum relief. See Forgue v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287
(11th Cir. 2005). But “an adverse credibility determination does not alleviate the
IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant.” Id.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioner’s
testimony lacked credibility. Our review of Petitioner’s statements to immigration
officials, his asylum application, and his asylum hearing testimony reveal
inconsistencies on material elements of his claim that he, as a member of the
Albanian Democratic Party, suffered political persecution by the Albanian
Socialist Party.
During an interview before filing his asylum application, Petitioner failed to
mention that, at the behest of the local Socialist Party head, he was beaten by
police after organizing an anti-Socialist political rally in October 1998. This
beating, though, was a major focus of the claims in his asylum application. Also,
Petitioner told an asylum officer during an interview when he arrived in the United
States that he never had been arrested before; but in his asylum application, he
stated that he had been arrested and detained for two days in August 1998. And
Petitioner failed to tell asylum officers during interviews that his brother was
killed in 1997 on a boat sunk by Socialist Party members; Petitioner did not put
this information in his asylum application. But he later testified about this event at
3
the asylum hearing. In addition, although Petitioner testified that, after he fled to
Greece, he was beaten by a member of the Albanian Socialist Party official who
then pulled out a knife, he alleged in his asylum application that the man used his
finger to simulate a knife. These inconsistencies go to key elements of Petitioner’s
claims that he was persecuted because of his political opinion. See Gao v.
Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating that adverse credibility finding
must go to the “heart” of the asylum claim and should not be based on minor
inconsistencies).
The IJ also considered--and discredited--the remaining documentary
evidence that Petitioner presented. Petitioner’s identification documents
(including his high school diploma, birth certificate, and family certificate) appear
to have been created after he came to the United States in March 2002. While this
fact does not mean that the documents necessarily are unreliable, Petitioner’s
evidence does not compel a conclusion that the IJ clearly was wrong to discredit
these items. A certificate from the Secretary and Chairman of the Democratic
Party contained information that Petitioner left Albania with his brother; but this
information conflicted with other documentary evidence and Petitioner’s
testimony that Petitioner left Albania in 1998, after his brother had drowned in
1997. Also, although the remainder of Petitioner’s evidence, including a U.S.
4
State Department Country Report and articles about the arrest and beatings of
some Democratic Party members, do support his claims, this evidence does not
compel a conclusion that the IJ erred.
In sum, the IJ provided cogent reasons for her credibility determination: and
these reasons are supported by substantial record evidence. See D-Muhumed, 388
F.3d at 819 (citations omitted). We are not compelled to reverse the IJ’s decision:
we uphold the denial of asylum relief.3
PETITION DENIED.
3
Because we uphold the denial of asylum relief based on the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, we need not address Petitioner’s argument that the IJ erred in determining that
Petitioner was barred from seeking asylum because he had firmly resettled in Greece before coming
to the United States.
5