[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16014 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 13, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A088-800-634,
A088-800-635
SHAVKAT JUMAYEV,
GULCHEKHRA DZHALILOVA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 13, 2009)
Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shavkat Jumayev,1 a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions this court for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).2 In his
petition, Jumayev challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own opinion and does not adopt the IJ’s
decision, we review only the BIA’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d
1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We review credibility determinations under the
substantial-evidence test and must affirm the BIA’s 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). “The
trier of fact must determine credibility, and this court may not substitute its
judgment . . . with respect to credibility findings.” Id. Therefore, we will reverse
“only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may
support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal.” Adefemi v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
1
Gulchekhra Dzhalilova proceeded as a derivative beneficiary. We refer to Jumayev, as
the lead petitioner.
2
Because Jumayev fails to offer any argument related to the denial of CAT relief, he has
abandoned this issue. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
To be eligible for asylum “the [applicant] must, with credible evidence,
establish (1) past persecution on account of [his] political opinion or any other
protected ground, or (2) a ‘well-founded fear’ that [his] political opinion or any
other protected ground will cause future persecution.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at
1230-31 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b)). To qualify for withholding of
removal, an applicant must establish that it is more likely than not “that his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327
F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)). The applicant
bears the burden of proof in establishing his eligibility for asylum and withholding
of removal. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). If an applicant cannot establish
eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding
of removal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1232-33.
An applicant’s testimony, if credible, may carry his burden of proof without
corroboration. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a). “Conversely, an adverse credibility
determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an asylum
application.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. An adverse credibility finding must be
explicit. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). “Once
an adverse credibility finding is made, the burden is on the applicant alien to show
that the [BIA’s] credibility decision was not supported by ‘specific, cogent
3
reasons’ or was not based on substantial evidence.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
“Indications of reliable testimony include consistency on direct examination,
consistency with the written application, and the absence of embellishments.”
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). The REAL ID Act,
which applies to applications such as Jumayev’s filed after the date of its
enactment, provides that an adverse-credibility determination can be based on
inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods, regardless of whether they relate to the
heart of an applicant’s claim. Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 101(a)(3), (d), 119 Stat. 231,
303-05 (2005). Nevertheless, “an adverse credibility determination does not
alleviate the [] duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant.”
Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. In other words, the fact finder must consider all
evidence introduced by the applicant. Id.
Upon review, we conclude that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
was supported by substantial evidence because there were discrepancies in
Jumayev’s evidence. First, in his visa application, Jumayev listed Ulmas as his
employer of ten years. In his testimony, however, he omitted this information until
confronted with it on cross-examination. Second, when asked about corroborating
evidence, Jumayev initially stated that he was afraid to take the documents with
him when he fled Uzbekistan, but later admitted that the documents did not exist.
Third, in his asylum application, Jumayev wrote that he was detained for eight
4
days, but in his testimony, he stated that it was seven days and at another point
stated that he was tortured during his “second week” of detention. Fourth,
Jumayev testified that he applied for a visa because he was afraid and in pain due
to his imprisonment in 2006, but when confronted with the fact that he had applied
for the visa before his imprisonment, Jumayev testified that he did so as a result of
bad memories from his mistreatment in 2005. During his testimony, however,
Jumayev had stated that he had forgotten about the 2005 mistreatment. Finally, in
his asylum application, Jumayev explained that he was told to leave the city when
he was threatened in 2005, but in his testimony, he stated he was told to leave the
country.
Because the other evidence in the record does not compel a reversal of the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination, we deny Jumayev’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
5