[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
March 11, 2008
No. 07-13387 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A96-095-830
A96-095-831
DIEGO FERNANDO AREVALOS,
SILVIA VERONICA APONTE,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(March 11, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Diego Fernando Arevalos and his wife, Silvia Veronica Aponte, seek review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the denial of
their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Arevalos and Aponte
allege that they suffered persecution in Argentina based on a protected ground and
should not be returned to their native country. We deny their petition.
Our standard of review is well established. “This court reviews administrative
fact findings under the highly deferential substantial evidence test. Under the
substantial evidence test, 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.”
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc) (citations
omitted).
To be granted asylum, an applicant must establish that he has suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. §
208.13(a)–(b). To establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant must
show that there is “a reasonable possibility” of persecution if the applicant were to
return to his country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i)(B). An applicant for asylum or
withholding of removal must establish that the persecution at issue is “on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), (b)(2)(i)(A). Because
2
the evidentiary burden for withholding of removal is greater than for asylum, an
applicant who fails to establish a well-founded fear of persecution is ineligible for
withholding of removal. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1292–93 (11th Cir.
2001).
Our review of this petition is divided in two parts. First, we address whether
substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that Arevalos did not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution. Second, we address whether substantial
evidence supports the finding of the Board that Aponte failed to demonstrate a nexus
between her persecution and the alleged ground for that persecution.
Substantial evidence supports the determination of the Board that Arevalos did
not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board relied on the
Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding with respect to Arevalos. Because
an adverse credibility finding alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an
application for asylum, Forgue v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.
2005) (citing D-Muhumed v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004)),
we must deny Arevalos’s petition if substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding about Arevalos’s
testimony for at least two reasons. First, Arevalos’s testimony was inconsistent with
3
Aponte’s testimony. Arevalos testified that his original application for asylum was
accurate in all respects except that it listed him, instead of his wife, as the lead
applicant. Arevalos’s application stated that Aponte’s alleged persecution had been
perpetrated by rival political parties. Aponte, in contrast, testified that she believed
her persecution to have been perpetrated by corrupt police, not political parties.
Second, Arevalos’s testimony was not consistent with his own application. Although
Arevalos testified that he had been beaten by two men on the street, he did not
mention that beating in his application. Because the evidentiary burden for
withholding of removal is greater than for asylum, Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292–93,
Arevalos is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the finding of the Board that Aponte failed
to demonstrate a nexus between her alleged persecution, whether past or future, and
a protected ground. Aponte testified that she realized, over one year after she arrived
in the United States, that the threats directed at her were intended to make her stop
working for an organization that mentors poor children. She testified that she came
to this realization after the police killed a teenager whom she had mentored. The
speculative nature of Aponte’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence that Aponte
failed to establish persecution based on a protected ground. Because Aponte failed
to satisfy her burden for asylum, she is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
4
The petition is
DENIED.
5