Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-10235/USCOURTS-ca11-19-10235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johan Jose Gregorio Fernandez Ponce
Petitioner
Daniel Alejandro Fernandez Puerta
Petitioner
Daniela Nazareth Fernandez Puerta
Petitioner
Alexandra Del Carmen Puerta Yanez
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10235

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A206-297-853

ALEXANDRA DEL CARMEN PUERTA YANEZ,

JOHAN JOSE GREGORIO FERNANDEZ PONCE,

DANIELA NAZARETH FERNANDEZ PUERTA,

DANIEL ALEJANDRO FERNANDEZ PUERTA, 

 Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 8, 2020)

USCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

Before WILSON, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alexandra Del Carmen Puerta Yanez and her husband and children seek 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The agency denied relief based 

on its finding that Puerta Yanez was not credible.

We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA 

expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 

403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, 

we will review both decisions to the extent they agree. Id. 

We review factual determinations, including credibility findings, under the 

substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We must affirm the finding “if it is supported by 

reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole.” Id. We review the record evidence “in the light most favorable to the 

agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id.

at 1255. Accordingly, for us to reverse a finding of fact, we must determine that 

the record “compels” reversal. Id. 

USCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

Considering the totality of the circumstances, a factfinder may base a

credibility finding on enumerated, nonexhaustive factors.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Consistency is key to several of them. See id.

A denial of asylum can be supported solely by an adverse credibility 

determination. Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009)

(per curiam). To challenge an adverse credibility finding, the applicant must 

demonstrate that the decision was not supported by “specific, cogent reasons” or

was not based on substantial evidence. Id. at 1305. 

In Kueviakoe, we reversed a BIA credibility determination that was based on 

three perceived inconsistencies. Id. at 1305–06. Those inconsistencies were 

insufficient to support the adverse credibility finding because no reasonable 

factfinder could have concluded that they were in fact inconsistencies on the 

record. Id. at 1305. We saw “no plausible and material inconsistency” or one “of 

any importance” when the petitioner’s word choice was inconsistent but “all of the 

other pertinent information remained the same.” Id. We credited consistency 

about the essence of the events themselves over superficially “inconsistent” 

generalizations about those events. See id. at 1305–06. And we rejected a 

perceived inconsistency “based on an error in reading.” Id. at 1306.

Here too, we can reject the main perceived inconsistency contributing to the 

BIA’s rationale. The BIA identified an inconsistency between Puerta Yanez’s IUSCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

589 form and her testimony. She had checked a “no” box in response to the 

question, “Have you, your family, or close friends or colleagues ever experienced 

harm or mistreatment or threats in the past by anyone?” “In contrast,” said the 

BIA, she “testified to several incidents involving verbal threats and past 

mistreatment in Venezuela.” According to the BIA, this was an “inconsistency as 

to whether she experienced past mistreatment at all.” 

According to the record, there was no inconsistency as to whether she 

experienced past mistreatment. See id. at 1305. With respect to the I-589, the BIA 

said nothing about Puerta Yanez’s “VIEW ATTACHED REPORT” entry in the 

box inviting applicants who had answered “yes” to explain their answers, or her 

attached report describing multiple threats and incidents of mistreatment. No 

reasonable factfinder would credit a box checked “no” over a typed entry 

explaining a “yes” answer combined with an attached report detailing threats and 

mistreatment in the same application. Regardless of whether this reasoning

resulted from an error in reading the form or an elevation of the superficial over the 

substantive, we reject this perceived inconsistency. See id. at 1305–06.

Additionally, the BIA indicated that both Puerta Yanez’s return trips to 

Venezuela and the timing of her asylum application after Hugo Chavez’s control 

ended supported the adverse credibility finding. We do not see how. Indeed, 

Puerta Yanez’s trips and application timing are consistent with her account that her 

USCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

mistreatment worsened over time, and that she did not decide to flee the country 

and apply for asylum until after an attack she suffered on August 23, 2014. 

As for the BIA’s discussion of country-conditions evidence, the BIA simply 

noted that the IJ found that this evidence did not corroborate the claims or show a 

particularized risk of harm. It did not seem to suggest that this evidence factored 

into the credibility finding. But even if it did, that evidence “cannot serve as the 

sole basis for refuting an otherwise consistent and plausible statement.” See Xiu 

Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 496 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussing 

credibility and State Department reports).

Finally, to the extent that the BIA relied on an exchange between the IJ and 

Puerta Yanez during the merits hearing to question her consistency as to her past 

mistreatment, this reliance is based on an error in reading. See Kueviakoe, 567 

F.3d at 1305–06. The BIA misread the record when it stated that she had 

responded “only that she feel[s] threatened” when asked whether she had been 

“‘specifically and directly threatened’ by anyone in Venezuela on account of her 

political opinion or for any other reason.” Rather, in the cited portion of the merits 

hearing transcript, the IJ asked Puerta Yanez if anyone had “specifically and 

directly threatened to hurt, harm or injure [her] upon [her] return to [her] home 

country.” Doc. 7 at 133 (BIA record on appeal) (emphasis added). 

USCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

In conclusion, the BIA found that “the checked ‘no’ box, together with the 

[IJ’s] statements doubting the reliability of [her] testimony . . . , provide sufficient 

reason to doubt” Puerta Yanez’s credibility. But we rejected the BIA’s reasoning 

as to the checked “no” box, and we explained problems with the BIA’s other 

“support” for its finding. Because we determine that the BIA’s credibility 

determination is not supported by any of the rationales that it cited, the record 

compels reversal. See Kueviakoe, 567 F.3d at 1306. Hence, we GRANT the 

petition and VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings. 

See id.

USCA11 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 6 of 6