FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 07 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -4 11 -6 98
ARTURO JOSE CAR RIZO, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st31 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d VINSON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Artu ro Jo se Carr iz o i s a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Ve ne zu el a. He cam e to th e Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.Uni te d S tate s o n No ve m be r 23 , 20 06 , as ano n- imm ig ran t v is it or for pl eas ur e au th or iz edto rem ai n u nt il May 22, 2 00 7. OnMay 2, 20 07 , as t im e was run ni ng ou t, h e ap pl ie d fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e Imm ig rat io n and Nati on al ity

Act (“ INA”), an d p ro te ct io n u nd er the U. N. Co nv en ti on Agai ns t Tortur e (“ CAT”). Inhi s ap pl ic at io n, Ca rri zo st at edth athe fear edreturni ng to Vene zu el a be cau se of h is fam il y ’s in vo lv em en t i n Acc io n Dem oc rat ic a, a p ol it ic al party op po se d t o P res id en t Hu go Ch av ez. Thi s fe ar i nt en si fie d o n M arch 4, 2 00 4, wh en hi s m ot he r was ki ll eddu rin g apo li ti cal ral ly by a m em be r of th e Ven ezu el an Nati on al Guar d. He cl ai m edth athe an d h is bro th er J os e wit ne ss edth e k il li ng an d th atth e Nat io na l Gu ardarre st edan d d et ai ne d t he m forsev eral ho ur s af

te rward s. Whi le de ta in ed , hi s b ro th er was be at en , th ou gh he was n ot . Fol lo win g h is
m ot he r’s de ath, m em

be rs of t he Nati on al Guar d thr eat en edhi m an d fo rcedhi m an d h is fam il y

in to hi di ng . In d es cri bi ng why he lef t Ven ezu el a an d was see ki ng as y lu m inth e Uni te d S ta te s, Ca rri zo cit edth e d iff ic ul ty his fam il y

ha d e xp eri en ced in att em pt in g t o s eekjus ti ce fo r hi s m ot he r’s m ur de r. He als o s ai d tha t h is fam il y ’s pro pe rti es were “ atth e m ercy of th e Ven ezu el anst at e.” At a m eri ts he ari ng onhi s ap pl ic at io n b efo re an Im m ig rat io n Jud ge (“ IJ ”), Carr iz o p res en te d t he tes ti m on y of h im se lf a ndJo se an d i nt ro du ceddo cu m en ta ry

2ev id en ce. Aft er h eari ng th is tes ti m on y an d c on si de rin g t he do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce, th e IJfou ndth atCarr iz o h adfai le d t o t es ti fy cred ib ly andth us ha d fa il edto sat is fy hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f. In f

in di ng Carr iz o’s t es ti m on y no t cr ed ib le , th e IJno te d
se ve ral m at eri al in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenCarr iz o’s t es ti m on y , asylum ap pl ic at io n, an d m uc h o f th e d oc um en ta ry

ev id en ce Ca rri zo ha d s ub mitte d. Th e IJth eref or e de ni edhi s ap pl ic at io n a ndord eredhi s re m ov al
. Carr iz o t im el y

ap pe al edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s (“ BIA”) . On Ju ne 7, 2 01 0, the BIA fo un d n o c le ar erro r in th e IJ ’s cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n, o bs erv in g t ha t the IJ h adsupp orte d h is cred ib il ity fin di ng s wi th sp eci fic an d c og en t re as on s. Th e BIA the refo re d is mis se d C arri zo ’s ap pe al
. Carr iz o n ow p et it io ns th is co urt fo r rev ie w, cha ll en gi ng th e BIA’s affi rm an ce o f th e IJ ’s fin di ng th athi s t es ti m on y was n otcred ib le . The i ss ue forus to de ci de is , th eref

or e, whe th er s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th atfin di ng an d t hu s th e BIA’s d eci si on . 1 W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t, u nl es s the BIA h as As an initial matter, we hold that beca use Carrizo failed to address the de nial of CAT 1 relief in his brief, he ha s abandone d his claim to such relief
. See Se pulveda v . U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005). Although the BIA ruled on the I J ’s denial of CAT relief sua sponte , any

claim that the I J err ed is unexhausted beca use Carrizo failed to present the issue to the BIA. See A maya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y G en. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1249- 51 (11th Cir. 2006). Ac cording ly , we lac k jurisdiction to review the de nial of CAT re lief. 3ex pr es sl y

ad op te d t he IJ’s d eci si on , inwhi chcas e we rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n a s well
. Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e al so rev ie w th e IJ ’s dec is io n t o t he ex te ntth atth e BIA ad op te d t he IJ’s re as on in g fo r th e d eci si on . Se e Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Becaus e th e BIA ad op te d t he IJ’s re as on in g wi th res pe ctto th e adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n, we rev ie w bo th th e IJ ’s andBIA’s de ci si on s co nc ern in g C orriz o’s cr ed ib il ity . W e rev ie w th e IJ ’s factua l d et erm in at io ns un de r th e subs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e te st . For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). W e m us t

“ affi rm th e [IJ ’s] de ci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce o n t he reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 12 84 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Und er thi s t es t, we v ie w “ th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e . . . deci si on an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ) (enba nc ). W e rev ers e anIJ’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs “ on ly if th e ev id en ce co m pe ls
a rea so nabl e fac t fi nd er t o fi ndot he rwis e.” To do ro vi c v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 62 1 F .3d 13 18 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d)
. An al ie n wh o a rri ve s i n o r is pre se ntinth e Uni te d S tate s m ay ap pl y for
as y lu m . The At to rn ey

Gene ral or S ecre ta ry

of Ho m el an d S ecu rit y

en joy s di sc ret io n t o g ran t as y lu m if the ali enis a “ refu ge e,” as de fin edby INA

4§ 1 01 (a)( 42 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A); INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1 15 8( b) (1 )(A). Sec ti on 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A) o f Tit le 8 o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C od e de fin es a refu ge e as : an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h p ers on ’s nat io na li ty or, in th e cas e o f a p ers on ha vi ng no na ti on al ity , is ou ts id e an y co un try in whi chsu chpe rs on las t h ab itua ll y res id ed , andwho is un ab le or un wil li ng to return t o, an d i s u nabl e o r un wil li ng to av ai l h im se lf o r he rs el f of th e p ro te ct io n o f, th atco un try becaus e o f pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, na ti on al ity , m em

be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al op in io n. INA § 1 01 (a)( 42 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A). The a sylum ap pl ic an t ca rri es th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng hi s s ta tu s as a st atut ory “ refu ge e” an d t he reb y

est ab li sh in g el ig ib il ity forasylu m . Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. “ To es tabl is h a sylum el ig ib il ity ba se d o n p ol it ic al op in io n, the ali encarr ie s the bu rd ento pro ve , with cred ib le ev id en ce, ei th er tha t (1 ) he su ffer edpa stpe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f hi s po li ti cal op in io n, o r (2 ) he ha s ‘a well -fo un de d fe ar’ th athi s p ol it ic al op in io n wi ll
cau se hi m

to be pe rs ecu te d.” Rod

ri gu ezMor al es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 48 8 F .3d88 4, 89 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7)
.

“ To es tabl is h a sylum

ba se d o n p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t p ro ve (1 ) th at[he ] was pe rs ecu te d, an d (2 ) th atth e p ers ecu ti on was o n a cco un t o f a pr ot ect edgro un d.” Si lv a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 8 F .3d12 29 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

5“ [P]erse cu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few i so late d i nc id en ts

of ve rb al ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n.” Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om itte d) . “ The ord in ary m ean in g o f th e p hr as e ‘pers ecu ti on on acco un t of
. . . po li ti cal op in io n’ in§ 1 01 (a)( 42 ) is pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t o f th e vi ct im’s po li ti cal op in io n, n otth e p ers ecu to r’s.” I.N.S. v. Elia s- Za ca ri as , 50 2 U.S. 4 78 , 48 2, 1 12 S.Ct . 81 2, 8 16 , 11 7 L.Ed .2d38 , 45 (19 92 ) (em ph as is inori gi na l). Nev erthe le ss , an a sylum

ap pl ic an t ca n p ro ve refu ge e st atus ba se d o n an i m pu te d po li ti cal op in io n, wh ethe r co rrec tl y or i nc orrect ly attr ib ut edto th e ap pl ic an t. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. To qua li fy

forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al un de r th e INA, anali enm us t s ho w th atif re tu rn edto hi s co un try, the ali en ’s li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edon acco un t o f rac e, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or po li ti cal op in io n. INA § 24 1( b) (3 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 ). “ The ali enbe ars th e bu rd enof d em on st rat in g t ha t i t i s ‘m or e li ke ly than n ot ’ [h e] will be pe rs ecu te d o r to rtu redup on be in g re tu rn edto [hi s] cou ntry .” Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2. A pe ti ti on er’s i nabi li ty to m eetth e st an da rdof p ro of forasylu m

ge ne ral ly precl ud es th e p et it io ne r fro m

qu al ifyin g fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al
. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 12 92 -9 3. The REAL ID Act o f 20 05 am en ds th e law forde te rm in in g c red ib il ity inan 6ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al fil edaft er Ma y 11 , 20 05
. Se e Pub. L. No. 1 09 -1 3, 1 19 Sta t. 3 02 , § 1 01 (h )(2 ). Sect io n 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i) o f Tit le 8 o f th e Uni te d S tate s C od e p ro vi de s:

Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu msta nc es , an d al l rel ev an t fact or s, a tri er of fact m ay ba se a cred ib il ity de te rm in at io n on th e de m ean or , can do r, or res po ns iv en es s of th e ap pl ic an t o r w i t n es s, th e in he ren t pl au si bi li ty of th e ap pl ic an t’s or witne ss ’s acco un t, th e co ns is te nc y be twee n th e ap pl ic an t’s or witne ss ’s writ te n an d or al s t a te m en ts (wh en ev er m ad e an d whe th er or no t un de r oa th , an d co ns id eri ng th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch th e st at em en ts were m ad e), th e in te rn al co ns is te nc y of each su ch st at em en t, th e co ns is te nc y of su ch st at em en ts with ot he r ev id en ce of reco rd (in cl ud in g th e rep orts of th e Dep art m en t of St at e on co un try co nd it io ns ), an d an y in accu raci es or fal se ho od s in su ch st at em e n t s, witho ut reg ard to whe th er an in co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se h o o d g oe s to th e he art of th e ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m , or any oth er rel ev an t fa ct or . The IJ m us t o ffer sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g. For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Anali en ’s owntes ti m on y “ cansu ffi ce wh ere t he te st im on y is be li ev ab le , con si st en t, an d su ffi ci en tl y

de ta il ed .” Ni

ftal ie v v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 50 4 F .3d12 11 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ti ng In re S -M-J , 21 I. & N. Dec. 7 22 (BIA 1 99 7) ). Bo th th e IJan d t he BIA fo un d C arri zo ’s tes ti m on y no t cr ed ib le . To reb ut th ei r fi nd in g, Ca rri zo m

us t s ho w th atth e fi nd in g i s n otsupp orte d b y “ sp eci fic , co ge ntreas on s” or wa s n otba se d o n s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 12 87 . “ [I]n the ab se nc e o f co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, anadve rs e cre di bi li ty 7de te rm in at io n m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he de ni al of a n app li cat io n.” Moh ammed

v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 54 7 F .3d13 40 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Of co ur se , anadve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n d oe s n otall ev ia te th e IJ ’s du ty to co ns id er ot he r ev id en ce p ro du cedby an as y lu m ap pl ic an t. Tha t i s, the IJ m us t s ti ll co ns id er al l ev id en ce i nt ro du cedby the ap pl ic an t.” For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7 (e m ph as is in
or ig in al ). Neve rth el es s, the IJ a ndth e BIA n eedno t “ ad dr es s s pe ci fic al ly each cl ai m th e p et it io ne r m ad e o r eac h p ie ce o f ev id en ce the pe ti ti on er p res en te d, b ut th ey m us t co ns id er the is su es rai se d a ndan no un ce the ir d eci si on interm s su ffi ci en t t o e nabl e a rev ie win g c ou rt t o p erce iv e th atth ey ha ve he ardan d tho ug ht
an d n otm erel y

reac te d.” Aya la v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 60 5 F .3d94 1, 9 48 (11 th Cir
. 20 10 ) (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n o m it te d)
. Inth e p res en t ca se , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s fin di ng th atCarr iz o’s t es ti m on y was n otcred ib le . The IJ an d t he BIA o ffer ed sp eci fic an d c og en t re as on s fo r th e fi nd in g; th ey cit ednu m ero us m at eri al in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenCarr iz o’s t es ti m on y an d t he do cu m en ta ry

ev id en ce h e in tro du cedinsupp ort o f hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. He cl ai m edto ha ve be enpre se nt with J os e atth e p ol it ic al ral ly whe n h is m othe r was ki ll ed . Yet, n ei th er the
ne wsp ap er arti cl es ab ou t the ev en t n orany m em be rs of h is fam il y

(in ap pl y in g fo r as y lu m) av erre d t ha t h e was po li ti cal ly acti ve , pre se ntat t he ral ly, orde ta in edan d 8be at enth erea fte r. In s ho rt, the do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce co rro bo rat edJo se ’s te st im on y , bu t n otCarr iz o’s. Carriz o a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adbe ende ta in edan d ha ras se d b y

th e Nat io na l Gu ardon nu m ero us ot he r oc cas io ns , bu t h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n m en ti on edno ne of t he se all eg edde te nt io ns . Alth ou gh Carr iz o m ig ht
reas on ab ly decl in e to li stev ery de te nt io n, h is fai lu re t o m en ti on an y of t he m supp orts th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty find in g. Se e For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7 (h ol di ng th atanap pl ic an t’s o m is si on of r el ev an t p ol it ic al act iv ity fro m hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n p ro vi de d s ub st an ti al ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty fin di ng ). Insu m , subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s d en ia l o f Carr iz o’s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n. Be cau se Carr iz o fa il edto sat is fy th e b ur de n o f
es tabl is hi ng eli gi bi li ty for as y lu m , th e IJan d t he BIA p ro pe rly fou ndth athe ha d
no t es tabl is he d e li gi bi li ty for wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al
. Se e Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 12 92 -9 3. PETITION DENIED.

9