[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-11298 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 27, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A098-950-227
LUZ DEY ZAMBRANO-GONZALEZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 27, 2011)
Before BARKETT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luz Dey Zambrano-Gonzalez (“Zambrano”) and Mauricio
Rivera-Zambrano, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as well as relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), based on an adverse credibility
finding and a lack of reasonably available corroborative evidence. On appeal,
Zambrano argues that the BIA did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding,
and alternatively, that the record does not support such a finding. Zambrano also
argues that the BIA did not make a finding regarding past persecution, and
therefore her case should be remanded.1
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA has
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th
Cir. 2007). Here, because the BIA issued its own opinion upholding the IJ’s
decision, we review only the BIA’s decision. Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567
F.3d 1301, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009).
We review the BIA’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence
test. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). 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 v. Ashcroft,
1
As Zambrano does not raise any challenge in her brief to the denial of CAT relief, that
claim is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under
this 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).
To qualify for asylum, an applicant must show, with specific and credible
evidence, either past persecution or a “well-founded fear” of future persecution on
a protected ground. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286–87 (11th
Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). Credible testimony “may be sufficient to sustain
the applicant’s burden without corroboration.” INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Conversely, an adverse credibility determination alone may
support a denial of an asylum claim, but if the applicant produces evidence other
than her testimony, the IJ and the BIA must consider this evidence as well.
Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
In evaluating credibility, the IJ and BIA must consider the “totality of the
circumstances,” including:
demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the
inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the
consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral
3
statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and
considering the circumstances under which the statements were
made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the
consistency of such statements with other evidence of record
(including the reports of the Department of State on country
conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements,
without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor.
INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When making an adverse
credibility finding, the IJ and BIA must be explicit and offer “specific, cogent
reasons” for the finding. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
Here, contrary to Zambrano’s contention, the BIA made an explicit adverse
credibility finding. That determination was based on several inconsistencies
between Zambrano’s asylum application, her testimony, and the documentary
evidence she submitted. Specifically, the BIA pointed to discrepancies regarding
the details of an incident in which her father was shot, and discrepancies regarding
her interactions with smugglers in Colombia. In relying upon these
inconsistencies, which are supported by the record, the BIA provided “specific,
cogent reasons” for its adverse credibility determination. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006). As Zambrano did not submit any
other corroborating evidence besides the documents that created inconsistencies
4
with her testimony, the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was sufficient to
support the denial of Zambrano’s asylum claim. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
Because Zambrano failed to meet the burden on her asylum claim, her claim
for withholding of removal necessarily failed. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1303.
Having disposed of Zambrano’s asylum claim as such, the IJ was not obligated to
make specific findings regarding past persecution with respect to Zambrano’s
claim for withholding of removal. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d
1247, 1249 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we deny Zambrano’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5