[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-10146 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 3, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A093-397-399
CHANG QI LI,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 3, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chang Qi Li seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final
order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum
and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). On appeal, Li
argues that the IJ and BIA erred in making an adverse credibility finding, and that
he established eligibility for relief.1 After review, we dismiss Li’s petition in part
and deny it in part.2
An adverse credibility finding may be based on inconsistencies and “any
inaccuracies or falsehoods in [an applicant’s] statements, without regard to
whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the
applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). If the IJ and the BIA explicitly
determine an alien is not credible, they must give “specific, cogent reasons” for the
adverse credibility determination. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231
1
Li also argues the BIA erred in determining he did not file his asylum application
within one year after the date of his arrival in the United States. We lack jurisdiction to review
this decision, and dismiss Li’s petition with regard to this claim. See Chacon-Botero v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
We review findings of fact under the substantial evidence test and must affirm the
decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). We
also review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence test and do not substitute
our judgment for that of the IJ or BIA. Id. We may not overturn findings of fact, including a
credibility determination, unless the record compels it. Id. at 1287.
2
(11th Cir. 2006). “The burden then shifts to the alien to show that the IJ’s
credibility decision was not supported by ‘specific, cogent reasons’ or was not
based on substantial evidence.” Id.
Here, the IJ and BIA provided specific, cogent reasons to support the
adverse credibility finding, which Li failed to rebut. For instance, Li failed to
detail his travel to Belize and his repatriation to China in his asylum application
statement. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (noting the omission of significant
events prior to a hearing may support an adverse credibility determination). Li also
failed to adequately explain why the same photograph was used in multiple
documents issued years apart by different agencies. Moreover, the documentary
evidence provided by Li and the testimony provided by Li’s wife do not provide
corroboration to his testimony compelling reversal of the IJ’s and BIA’s decision.
See Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating
an IJ is under no obligation to credit an applicant’s documentary evidence or
assign it decisive weight). Because Li failed to show the record compels reversal,
we deny his petition for review with regard to his claims for withholding of
removal and CAT relief.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3