Case ID: f-appx_278/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yodit Desta TEAME, Alay Mana Tarkegn, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 07-13749
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 21, 2008.
    Z. Zareefa Kahn, Hollywood, FL, for Petitioners.
    David V. Bernal, Jeffery R. Leist, US-DOJ, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Yodit Desta Teame and Alay Mana Tarkegn petition this Court for review of the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c). The Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration judge denied the applications based on a finding that Teame and Tarkegn were not credible. We deny the petition.

We review credibility determinations under the substantial evidence test. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (11th Cir.2006). Adverse credibility findings will be reversed “only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Id. at 1231 (quoting Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)). An adverse credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods in the applicant’s oral and written statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).

Substantial evidence supports the decision that Teame and Tarkegn were not credible. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir.2001). Teame and Tarkegn presented inconsistent and implausible testimonies about their marriage, Teame’s country of birth, where they had lived and worked, their church attendance, and whether they had suffered persecution on account of their religion. The immigration judge and Board provided specific, cogent reasons to support the adverse credibility determination. Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. Teame and Tarkegn offer no explanation for their inconsistencies that would “ ‘compel’ a reasonable fact finder” to reverse that credibility finding or to conclude that they established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Id.

Teame and Tarkegn’s petition for review is DENIED.

PETITION DENIED.