IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60306

Summary Calendar

CARLOS MURRALLES-MEJIA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 061 419

Before GARWOOD, PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Carlos Murralles-Mejia (Murralles), a Guatemalan citizen, has petitioned

this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying

Murralles’s application for withholding of removal. This court generally reviews

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 12, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Murralles also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Murralles 1

raises no issue with respect to the denial of his request for relief under the CAT; nor does he

dispute the denial of his claim for asylum (no justification was shown for his failure to apply

for asylum for more than four years after arrival in the United States). See Thuri v. Ashcroft,

Case: 10-60306 Document: 00511443469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2011
No. 10-60306

only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influences the

BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The substantial

evidence standard is applied in reviewing factual findings in immigration

proceedings. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under that

standard, “[t]he applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.

Murralles challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, which was based

on his demeanor, inconsistencies in his testimony with respect to the date of his

relocation within Guatemala in response to the alleged persecution, and his

failure to produce evidence to corroborate his testimony. Murralles contends

that the evidence was not materially inconsistent and that there was no evidence

that his testimony was not credible. Murralles contends that his testimony was

detailed and consistent and that he explained his failure to present documentary

evidence corroborating his testimony. Murralles’s argument misapprehends this

court’s standard of review and his burden of proof in the agency proceedings.

Murralles’s application for relief is governed by the REAL ID Act, which

amended the standards for assessing credibility. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d

531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the REAL Act, “an applicant’s testimony, alone,

may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, ‘but only

if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that [his] testimony is credible, is

persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the

applicant is a refugee.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)). The IJ may

2

consider the “totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant factors” in making

a credibility determination. See § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (listing factors). An

applicant’s credibility is not presumed. Id.

380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (issues not addressed in opening brief are waived).

In determining whether an alien is entitled to withholding of removal, the trier of fact

2

“shall make credibility determinations, in the manner described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of

section 1158(b)(1)(B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C).

2

Case: 10-60306 Document: 00511443469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2011
No. 10-60306

Thus, “‘an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an

adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances

establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.’” Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39

(quoting with approval Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); quote

at 538). This court will defer “‘to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from

the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could

make such an adverse credibility ruling.’” Id. at 538 (quoting Lin, 534 F.3d at

167). In making a credibility finding, the IJ is not required to consider only

inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods that “go to the ‘heart’” of an

applicant’s claim, id. at 537 (quoting § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), as details at the

periphery of the applicant’s story “‘may expose a liar.’” Id. at 539 (quoting

Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 789 (7th Cir. 2008)).

Murralles was required to establish in the agency proceedings that his

testimony was credible, persuasive, and sufficiently specific. See Wang, 569 F.3d

at 537. He failed to do so. The IJ could have overlooked, for reasons stated in

Murralles’s brief, the inconsistencies in Murralles’s statements regarding the

timing of his relocation within Guatemala, but she did not. This court may not

reverse the BIA’s adverse credibility determination unless the evidence was so

compelling that “no reasonable fact-finder” could have failed to find Murralles

credible. Id. at 538-39. Murralles has not satisfied that standard. Contrary to

Murralles’s argument, his testimony was strikingly lacking in detail with regard

to his movements within Guatemala, the activities of the civic committee in

which he participated, and the nature of the malfeasance exposed by the civic

committee, which led to his alleged persecution. Murralles failed to provide any

evidence corroborating his testimony, including his membership in, or the

existence (or any activities) of, the alleged civic committee. Because the adverse

credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence and because Murralles

submitted no additional evidence corroborating his testimony, we have not

considered the BIA’s alternative determination that Murralles failed to carry his

3

Case: 10-60306 Document: 00511443469 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2011
No. 10-60306

burden with respect to withholding of removal. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d

788, 790, 792-93 (5th Cir. 2004). The petition for review is DENIED.

4

Case: 10-60306 Document: 00511443469 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2011