[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15673 MAY 13, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A098-730-701
ALEJANDRO MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 13, 2009)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Mendoza petitions for review of the denial of his application for
asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and
relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The Board affirmed the rulings of the
immigration judge that Mendoza was not credible and that he failed to establish
past persecution. We deny the petition.
We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it is “supported
by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “To reverse
[those] fact findings, we must find that the record not only supports reversal, but
compels it.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
We review the legal conclusions of the Board de novo. Id. at 1287 n.6. When the
Board adopts the findings of the Immigration Judge, we review the decision of the
Immigration Judge. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Mendoza was not credible, see
id. at 1283–84, and the immigration judge provided specific and cogent reasons to
support that finding. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.
2006) (per curiam). Mendoza provided dubious accounts about two encounters
with members of the Bolivarian Circles. Mendoza stated in his application that the
first encounter involved one individual, but he later testified that he was
2
approached by two men. Mendoza blamed his inconsistency on a lack of counsel,
but as explained by the immigration judge, “one should not need advice to tell the
truth about what happened.” Mendoza even changed his description of the
clothing worn by his assailants by first testifying that the men wore red and blue
shirts and later testifying that the men wore red shirts and bandannas. Mendoza
provided an implausible account of how, during the second encounter, his attackers
held a gun to his head for an hour and spoke only two or three sentences to him
about how it would be “worse for” him and his uncle if he did not provide
information about his uncle’s opposition party and that “it [would] be good” for
him if he cooperated. Mendoza failed to provide any details about the kidnapping,
his conversation with the kidnappers, or why they ultimately released him.
Mendoza alleged that his intimidators demanded information about the parcels that
he delivered for his uncle, but failed to mention whether those men attempted to
seize or open the packages that he was carrying. Mendoza offers no explanation
for these inconsistencies, vagueness, or implausible stories to compel us to reverse
the adverse credibility finding. Id.
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Mendoza did not
suffer past persecution. According to Mendoza, he was told in telephone
conversations and the encounters that he would be “treat[ed] better” if he divulged
information about his uncle’s opposition party and threatened that “it would go
3
very bad” for him and his uncle if he refused, but threats and harassment do not
constitute persecution. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“[M]ere harassment does not amount to
persecution.” Persecution requires “more than a few isolated incidents of verbal
harassment or intimidation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Mendoza also
alleged that his intimidators displayed weapons, but he admitted that he was never
physically harmed. See Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1238 (11th Cir.
2006).
We DENY Mendoza’s petition for review.
4