[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 26, 2009
No. 08-16962 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A098-546-623
BIRUTE NORKUTE,
a.k.a. Birute Vitaustas Norkute,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 26, 2009)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Birute Norkute, a native and citizen of Lithuania, through counsel,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order finding her removable and denying her application
for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). On appeal,
Norkute argues substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse
credibility finding, or the denial of her asylum claim.1
“We review only the [BIA’s] decision, except to the extent that it expressly
adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242
(11th Cir. 2004). The BIA issued its own decision but also adopted the IJ’s
opinion, so we will review both. Issues of legal interpretation are reviewed de
novo, Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2001), and
administrative fact findings, including adverse credibility findings, are reviewed
“under the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386
1
Because Norkute does not challenge the denial of CAT relief on appeal, she has abandoned
any claim in this respect. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir.
2005) (holding issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned). Likewise, she has abandoned
her withholding-of-removal claim by failing to make any substantive arguments pertaining to this
issue, even though she mentions it in passing in her brief. See Bayro v. Reno, 142 F.3d 1377, 1379
(11th Cir. 1998) (“[W]hen a party lists an issue for appellate review but does not discuss that
question in their argument, they have abandoned it.”).
2
F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Under this test, we will not reverse
the BIA’s factual finding unless the record compels it. Id. at 1027.
Norkute argues substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s and BIA’s
adverse credibility finding. Specifically, she argues (1) her oral testimony was
consistent with her written asylum application and the background reports on
Lithuania, and (2) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based solely on
“mere conjecture and opinion” and his “ethnocentric perspective.”
To be considered an adverse credibility determination, the IJ or BIA must
state explicitly the applicant’s testimony was not credible, and the IJ and BIA
“must offer specific, cogent reasons” for that finding. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). “Once an adverse credibility finding is
made, the burden is on the applicant alien to show that the IJ’s [or BIA’s]
credibility decision was not supported by specific, cogent reasons or was not based
on substantial evidence.” Id. An adverse credibility determination “does not
alleviate the IJ’s [or BIA’s] duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum
applicant.” Id.
The IJ and BIA made explicit adverse credibility determinations, finding
Norkute’s testimony was not credible based on its implausibility. We have held
concerns about an applicant’s credibility on “key elements of the claim,” combined
with the applicant’s “failure to rebut these with sufficient corroborating evidence
3
and explanation,” supported the denial of asylum. See Nreka v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
408 F.3d 1361, 1369 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, the IJ and BIA provided specific,
cogent reasons for doubting Norkute’s veracity, including concerns regarding the
believability of key events in her testimony and the lack of corroborating police
and medical reports. Norkute’s only attempt to rebut these findings comes from
her conclusory statements labeling the determinations as “ethnocentric” and “mere
conjecture and opinion.” Her response provides an insufficient explanation to
compel reversal. Nreka, 408 F.3d at 1369. Accordingly, we deny Norkute’s
petition.
PETITION DENIED.
4