[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-11137 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 2, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A73-603-921
MAIMUNA JALLOW,
a.k.a. Mimuna Jack,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 2, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Maimuna Jallow (“Petitioner”), a Gambian citizen, asks this Court
to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) finding
Petitioner not credible and not eligible for withholding of removal. Petitioner also
asks this court to review the BIA order denying cancellation of removal. No
reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Petitioner arrived in the United States in 1988 as a non-immigrant visitor
and filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of removal in 2005.
Petitioner contended that her husband’s native tribe practices Female Genital
Mutilation (“FGM”) and that she and her daughters would be subjected to FGM if
they return to The Gambia.
Petitioner submitted several government reports describing FGM in The
Gambia, but these reports did not establish that Petitioner and her daughters would
more likely than not suffer FGM in The Gambia. Petitioner also submitted her
daughters’ birth certificates. Two of the girls’ birth certificates inaccurately
indicated that Petitioner was born in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The IJ found that, in
addition to claiming inaccurately United States citizenship on these birth
certificates, Petitioner misrepresented the likelihood that she and her daughters
would suffer FGM: Petitioner’s husband opposes FGM, Petitioner and her eldest
2
daughter lived in The Gambia previously and did not suffer FGM, and Petitioner
did not provide independent corroboration of her and her husband’s tribal
affiliation. Because of these factors as well as others, the IJ found Petitioner not
credible.
The IJ denied withholding of removal and found Petitioner ineligible for
cancellation of removal because she was not credible and had not shown that her
U.S. citizen daughters would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in
The Gambia. Petitioner appealed, and the BIA affirmed the IJ with its own
decision. Petitioner now asks this Court to review the decisions of BIA and IJ.
Eligibility for Withholding of Removal: Adverse Credibility Finding
“We review only the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent that it expressly
adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).
Because the BIA issued its own decision, here we review the BIA’s decision. We
review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). We review the BIA’s factual determinations
under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to view the record “in the
light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in
3
favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir.
2004). We must affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” D-
Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 818 (quotation omitted). To reverse the BIA’s fact finding,
“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). If the BIA doubts the
credibility of the applicant on key elements of the claim and the applicant fails to
rebut these concerns with sufficient corroborating evidence, the BIA may deny
asylum. See Nreka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 408 F.3d 1361, 1369 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner argues that she provided adequate explanations to overcome
inconsistencies in the record and that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that she
needed to produce documentary evidence of her tribal affiliation to support her
claim that it was more likely than not that she would be persecuted.
The BIA gave several specific examples of discrepancies supporting its
adverse credibility finding, including that Petitioner inaccurately filled out her
daughters’ birth certificates to indicate that Petitioner was born in the U.S. Virgin
Islands and thus a United States citizen. These inaccuracies raised concern that her
assertions about her tribal background were also inaccurate.
4
Inconsistent and weak testimony by an applicant creates a greater need for
corroborating evidence. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir.
2005). Here, the petitioner failed to provide the BIA with corroborating evidence
sufficient to overcome the BIA’s concerns about her credibility. When considered
in the context of our deferential standard of review, we conclude that Petitioner has
failed to establish that the record compels reversal of the BIA’s credibility
determination. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to this claim.
Eligibility for Cancellation of Removal
We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, the Attorney
General may cancel removal of a nonpermanent resident who meets certain
requirements, including establishing that removal would result in “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s [U.S. citizen] spouse, parent, or child.” 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). But we do not have jurisdiction to review the denial of
relief under 1229b, except in appeals rasing constitutional claims or questions of
law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D). The BIA’s “exceptional and
5
extremely unusual hardship determination is a discretionary decision not subject to
review.” Martinez, 446 F.3d at 1221 (quotations omitted).
Because Petitioner raised no constitutional claim or question of law on
appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of
removal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition on this issue.
AFFIRMED. DISMISSED in PART.
6