[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10076 AUGUST 9, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A95-897-305 & A95-897-306
SANDRA MARTINEZ,
MARIA ANDEA LEAL,
IVAN DARIO LEAL,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 9, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Dario Leal; his wife, Sandra Martinez; and their daughter, Maria Andea
Leal, all natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA affirmed an order of the Immigration
Judge that denied their petition for asylum and withholding of removal because the
IJ found their testimony and documentary evidence not credible. We deny the
petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Leal alleged in his asylum application that he was persecuted by the FARC
because of his involvement in the Liberal Party. Leal alleged that the FARC
attempted to kidnap him after he worked on a campaign to extend prison sentences
for those convicted of guerilla activity. Leal then fled to the United States, but his
family remained in Colombia. The asylum application alleged that Martinez was
injured when two men fired at her car and hit her in the face. She recovered in a
hospital, but the family allegedly continued to receive threats. The asylum
application alleged that Leal took a trip to Costa Rica to interview for a job, but
returned to the United States when his interviewer informed Leal that Leal
continued to receive threats from the FARC in Colombia. In support of his
application, Leal submitted several documents: a letter from FARC that declared
him as a military target, a letter from the Liberal Party that thanked him for his
work, an Emergency Clinic History for Martinez with an admission number
2
01034491, a diagnosis with patient number 01 34491 for Edilberto Mora, who was
Martinez’s driver, and a diagnosis for Sandra Martinez with a patient number
0131638. At the removal hearing, Leal conceded removability. At the asylum
hearing, both Leal and Martinez testified.
The IJ denied Leal’s asylum application because she found his application
not credible. The IJ found that the medical documents submitted by Leal were
fraudulent because “they are clearly altered, which is viewable to the naked eye.”
The IJ explained that the documents had biographical information about Martinez
that had been inserted in different handwriting and ink. The documents also had
gaps or marks where alterations or erasures had been made, and the admission
numbers on the documents were inconsistent. Leal and Martinez were unable to
provide originals for any of the documents.
The IJ also found the testimony of Leal and Martinez not credible for several
reasons. First, the IJ found that Leal and Martinez testified inconsistently with the
asylum application. Leal testified that he started to receive threats in 1999 when he
moved to a new apartment, but his application stated that he started to receive
threats in 1998 and he had lived in the same apartment since 1995. Second, the IJ
stated that “[t]he subjective claim of persecution . . . [is] substantially undermined”
by numerous trips to the United States by Leal and Martinez without seeking
asylum. Third, the IJ also found Leal’s allegation that he decided to return to the
3
United States based on the information he received from his interviewer in Puerto
Rico to be not credible. Fourth, the IJ found Leal and Martinez not credible
because they failed to submit police reports about the shooting incident and the
threats they received. Fifth, the IJ stated that the threatening letter submitted by
Leal “appears to have been scripted” because of the use of the word “persecution.”
The BIA affirmed. Although the BIA stated that “the [IJ] made an improper
assumption that the letter from the FARC was fraudulent due to the inclusion of the
word ‘persecution,” the BIA found that the fraudulent medical documentation, the
inconsistent testimony, and the “apparent lack of urgency in applying for asylum”
supported the adverse credibility finding of the IJ.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the BIA issued a separate opinion from the IJ, we review the
decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted the
decision of the IJ. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. D-Muhumed v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004). A decision of the IJ is not
supported by substantial evidence when the record compels a contrary conclusion.
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005).
III. DISCUSSION
4
Leal argues that the BIA erroneously affirmed the denial of their application
for asylum and withholding of removal. Leal contends that the adverse credibility
finding of the IJ is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.
The findings of the IJ that the documents submitted by Leal were fraudulent
and the testimonies of Leal and Martinez were inconsistent with their application
for asylum are supported by substantial evidence. There are gaps in the preprinted
portions of the medical forms, the medical forms for Martinez and Mora have the
same patient numbers, and other alterations are “viewable to the naked eye.” Leal
testified inconsistently about the date that the alleged threats began, Leal failed to
explain why he relied on the statements of his interviewer in Puerto Rico to come
to the United States, and Martinez testified inconsistently about the shooting
incident. Although Leal now provides explanations for these inconsistencies, the
record does not “compel[] a contrary conclusion.” Id.
IV. CONCLUSION
Leal’s petition is
DENIED.
5