[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 16, 2007
No. 06-14801 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A96-110-494
HONG CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 16, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Hong Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of
the Bureau of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order, affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) final order denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention on Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Regarding his asylum claim,1 Chen argues on appeal that the BIA’s factual
findings supporting its adverse credibility determination were not supported by
substantial evidence because he was not given an opportunity to articulate why he
gave differing accounts of his arrest in China for selling illegal Falun Gong
materials. Second, Chen challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility finding as to his
assertion that he currently is a practitioner of Falun Gong. He argues that the BIA
failed to discredit his evidence of membership with specific and cogent reasons,
relying instead on its adverse credibility finding related to his arrest in China.
When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the
extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257
1
Chen has abandoned his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT.
Chen states, in part, that he is appealing the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of those
claims and includes law relating to withholding of removal and the CAT, but he does not argue
how he met the higher standard of proof required by withholding of removal, why he was
entitled to relief under the CAT, or how the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s decision denying his
request for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. Because he does not present
arguments for his claims of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT, we hold that Chen
has abandoned them. See Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding
that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned).
2
F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar as the [BIA] adopts the IJ's reasoning,
we will review the IJ's decision as well.” Id. Here, the BIA found that the IJ did
not clearly err, but it also made additional findings and found that discrepancies in
Chen’s account of his travel through Japan were not directly relevant to his asylum
petition. Therefore, we review the BIA’s decision.
The Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion
to grant asylum if an alien meets the INA’s definition of a “refugee.” See INA §
208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The asylum applicant carries the burden of
proving statutory “refugee” status. Al-Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. In order to carry
this burden, the alien must, with specific and credible evidence, establish (1) past
persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or (2) a “well-founded fear”
that the statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a),
(b); Al-Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1287.
The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial
evidence test, and we “must affirm the BIA's decision if it is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole." Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The substantial evidence test is deferential and does not allow “re-weigh[ing] the
evidence from scratch.” Mazariegos v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 241 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th
Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “Credibility determinations likewise are reviewed
3
under the substantial evidence test.” D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814,
818 (11th Cir. 2004). A credibility determination may not be overturned unless the
record compels it. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A]n adverse credibility determination
alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application” when there
is no other evidence of persecution. Id. However, an adverse credibility
determination does not alleviate the BIA’s duty to consider other evidence
produced by the asylum applicant. Id. The “IJ [or BIA] must still consider all
evidence introduced by the applicant.” Id. (emphasis in original).
The record demonstrates that Chen had the opportunity at his hearing to
clarify any inconsistencies in previous sworn documents and to develop further his
arguments for eligibility for asylum. However, he did not fully develop his
arguments for eligibility for asylum. The inconsistencies surrounding his accounts
of his arrest and membership in Falun Gong support the BIA’s adverse credibility
finding. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
4