[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10952

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

NELSON DORT, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A209-384-835

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 1 of 20
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Nelson Dort, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks 

review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 

208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1231(b)(3). Petitioner argued below that he was entitled to asylum and withholding of removal 

based on his well-founded fear of persecution in Haiti on account 

of his political opinion, nationality, and race. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application, finding that he was statutorily ineligible for 

asylum pursuant to the “firm resettlement” bar and that his testimony in support of his persecution-based withholding of removal 

claim was not credible. The BIA affirmed. After careful review, 

we discern no reversible error in the BIA’s decision and likewise 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner left Haiti in January 2013 and arrived in Brazil a 

month later, after traveling through Ecuador and Colombia. Petitioner stayed in Brazil for approximately three years and four 

months, during which time he was authorized to work and travel 

freely. In 2015, while he lived in Brazil, Petitioner fathered a son 

who is Brazilian and who currently lives in Brazil with his mother. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 2 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 3

Petitioner left Brazil in 2016, following an economic downturn there. From Brazil, Petitioner traveled to Ecuador and Colombia, through Central America, and ultimately to Tijuana, Mexico. Petitioner then entered the United States and presented himself to US immigration officials at San Ysidro, California in June 

2016. In his initial immigration interview, Petitioner stated that he 

had come to the United States for economic reasons, that he had 

not been harmed, threatened, or otherwise persecuted in Haiti and 

had no fear of returning to Haiti, and that he was not a member of 

a political group there. In addition, Petitioner advised immigration 

officials that he had residency in Brazil as well as in Haiti. Petitioner 

swore to the veracity of the statements he made during his initial 

interview, and he affirmed that he made the statements freely and 

voluntarily. 

In August 2016, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice for Petitioner to appear in removal proceedings. The 

notice charged Petitioner with being removable as an immigrant 

present in the United States without a valid entry document. After 

several delayed and rescheduled hearings, Petitioner filed an I-589 

application in August 2017 seeking asylum and withholding of removal under §§ 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the INA. In the August 2017 

application, Petitioner claimed he was entitled to asylum and withholding of removal based on his well-founded fear of persecution 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 3 of 20
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

in Haiti on account of his race, political opinion, and membership 

in a particular social group.1

In a declaration attached to his August 2017 application, Petitioner alleged that he became a member of the Haitian political 

party Pitit Dessalines in May 2012, and that he was attacked at his 

Dessalines, Haiti area pawn shop in December 2012 by Pierre Joseph, a member of the rival political party Haiti in Action or 

“AAA.” Petitioner claimed in the declaration that Joseph left him 

lying unconscious on the pawn shop floor after the attack, and that 

he was found and rescued by community members who took him 

to the hospital. Petitioner did not provide any additional details 

about Joseph’s alleged attack in his declaration. Nevertheless, Petitioner asserted in the declaration that he traveled from Haiti to

Brazil in early 2013 to protect himself from Joseph. He explained 

that his first year in Brazil went well, but that he and other Haitians 

living in Brazil experienced discrimination beginning in 2016, following an economic downturn in that country. Consequently, Petitioner stated, he left Brazil in June 2016 and traveled to the United 

States. 

Petitioner filed an amended I-589 application in November 

2017, in which he again claimed he was entitled to asylum and 

withholding of removal based on a well-founded fear of persecution in Haiti on account of his race, nationality, and political 

1 Petitioner also initially sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, 

but he subsequently dropped that claim and we do not address it in this appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 4 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 5

opinion. In the November 2017 application, Petitioner repeated his 

allegation that he had become a member of the Pitit Dessalines political party in May 2012, and that he subsequently had been attacked by Pierre Joseph from the rival AAA party. However, in the 

later application, Petitioner alleged that Joseph’s attack in the pawn 

shop occurred in July 2012 instead of December 2012, and he 

claimed that Joseph pulled a gun and fired shots at him during the 

attack. 

In addition to the discrepancy as to the date and manner of 

the pawn shop attack, Petitioner described two subsequent attacks 

by Joseph in the November 2017 application that were omitted 

from his August 2017 declaration. Specifically, Petitioner stated in 

the later application that when he returned to his Dessalines area 

pawn shop a few days after the initial attack in July 2012, Joseph 

and two of his AAA friends attacked Petitioner a second time, after 

which Petitioner was again rescued by community members who 

took him to the hospital. Petitioner claimed that he reported the 

second attack to the police, and that he subsequently left the Dessalines area and went to Gonaives, Haiti to live with a friend. According to the November 2017 application, Joseph and three other 

men found him in Gonaives in October 2012 and beat him up, after 

which Petitioner was found by community members and taken to 

a “bush doctor” who gave Petitioner a massage and a potion for 

blood clots and pain. 

Petitioner stated in the November 2017 application that he 

left Gonaives a few days after Joseph’s third attack and went to Port 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 5 of 20
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

au Prince to stay with a friend. However, Petitioner claimed that 

one day in January 2013, while he was taking a shower in his Port 

au Prince residence, he heard his name mentioned and looked out 

the window of the bathroom to see one of the men who had beaten 

him before. At that point, Petitioner said, he grabbed a few things 

and went through the back window to a neighbor’s house. The 

next morning Petitioner caught a ride to the Dominican Republic. 

From the Dominican Republic, Petitioner traveled by plane to Ecuador, and he subsequently traveled by car to Brazil, arriving there 

in February 2013. 

Petitioner acknowledged in the November 2017 application 

that he obtained residency status and work authorization in Brazil, 

and that he began a relationship with a woman in Brazil and had a 

son there in April 2015. But according to Petitioner, Brazil experienced an economic downturn in 2016 that led to discrimination 

against Haitians living in Brazil. Petitioner stated that, as a result 

of the discrimination, he left Brazil in June 2016 and traveled by 

foot, car, bus, and boat through Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and ultimately to Tijuana, Mexico, where he crossed the United States 

border at San Ysidro and presented himself to US immigration officials. 

The IJ held a hearing on Petitioner’s application for asylum 

and withholding of removal in March 2019. At the beginning of 

the hearing, Petitioner proffered corroborating documents, including a police report he allegedly filed in Haiti in July 2012, a copy of 

a membership card showing his affiliation with Pitit Dessalines, a 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 6 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 7

letter from his father, and news articles about Pitit Dessalines, but 

the Government objected to the IJ’s consideration of the documents because they were submitted on the day of the hearing, 

nearly two years after Petitioner filed his initial I-589 application, 

and they could not be properly reviewed or authenticated. The IJ 

excluded as untimely all the documents except two country reports. 

Petitioner was the only witness who testified at the March 

2019 hearing. He acknowledged during his testimony that he had 

one child, who was born in Brazil in April 2015 and who currently 

lived in Brazil, and that the rest of his family still lived in Haiti, except for one brother who lived in Brazil. For the duration of his 

testimony, Petitioner essentially restated the facts set out in his November 2017 I-589 application, adding a few significant details. Petitioner claimed in his testimony that he joined the political group 

Pitit Dessalines in 2012, that he had a position with the Pitit Dessalines that involved educating the community about the group’s 

ideas for change in the community, and that he also had worked 

for Pitit Dessalines in an election overseer capacity in 2010. 

Petitioner testified that he left Haiti in 2013 after suffering 

political persecution by the AAA party, specifically the allegedly politically motivated attacks mentioned above. Petitioner described 

in his testimony the two times Joseph allegedly attacked him at his 

Dessalines area pawn shop in July 2012, as well as the October 2012 

attack in Gonaives. Petitioner testified that he moved to Port au 

Prince after the third attack, but that he left Haiti and traveled to 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 7 of 20
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

Brazil after Joseph showed up in Port au Prince asking about him.

Petitioner explained that he arrived in Brazil in February 2013, 

where he lived and worked until 2016, when he and other Haitians 

living in Brazil began to experience discrimination after an economic downturn. At that time, Petitioner testified, he decided to 

travel to the United States. 

On cross-examination, Petitioner offered no good explanation for the inconsistencies between his sworn statement to US immigration officials during his initial interview and his subsequent I589 applications and testimony. For example, the Government attorney pointed out that Petitioner had stated in his June 2016 interview, contrary to his later-filed I-589 applications and testimony, 

that he left Haiti for economic reasons, that he had no fear of returning there, and that he had no political affiliation in Haiti. Asked 

to explain the conflict, Petitioner stated only that he was “under a 

lot of stress” during the June 2016 interview, in part because of the 

way he was detained with his hands behind his back. Petitioner 

also failed on cross-examination to explain other discrepancies between his various statements and his testimony—for example, the 

number of times he reported Joseph’s attacks to the police—and he 

could not remember significant details about the incidents that 

were the subject of his testimony, such as the name of the hospital 

where he was treated. 

After the Government’s cross-examination, the IJ directly 

questioned Petitioner as to whether he had used any names other 

than his own while traveling to the United States. Petitioner 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 8 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 9

admitted that he had used the name Johnny Joseph or Johnny Deajuste, instead of his real name Nelson Dort, to facilitate his movement through various countries. Petitioner also admitted that he 

had said he was from Congo rather than Haiti during his journey. 

Petitioner explained that it is more difficult for Haitians to pass 

through certain places. 

At the conclusion of the March 2019 hearing, the IJ determined that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner 

was firmly resettled in Brazil, including Petitioner’s testimony that 

he had residency in Brazil, that he could travel in Brazil, that he 

worked in Brazil, and that he had a child who was born in Brazil 

and currently lived in Brazil with his mother. Noting that Petitioner had failed to rebut the resettlement evidence or to establish 

an exception to the firm resettlement bar, the IJ concluded that he 

was statutorily barred from asylum and thus denied his asylum application. 

The IJ also found that Petitioner’s testimony regarding his 

alleged politically motivated2 persecution in Haiti was not credible 

because of numerous inconsistencies between his prior statements 

and his testimony at the hearing. In particular, the IJ emphasized 

Petitioner’s June 2016 statement to US immigration officials that 

he had no fear of returning to Haiti, that he came to the United 

2 Petitioner did not present any testimony or evidence below to support the 

claim in his I-589 application that he was persecuted on account of his race or 

nationality, and he does not pursue that claim on appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 9 of 20
10 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

States for economic reasons, and that he had no political affiliation 

in Haiti or any other country. That statement directly contravened 

Petitioner’s later-filed I-589 applications and his testimony at the 

merits hearing. The IJ also noted other discrepancies related to the 

date, number, and manner of Joseph’s alleged attacks and the number of times Petitioner reported the attacks to the police. Finally, 

the IJ found it significant that Petitioner had lied about his name 

and country of origin as he traveled through other countries on his 

way to the United States. Based on all this evidence, the IJ concluded that Petitioner’s political persecution claim lacked veracity 

and that he had not shown he was eligible for withholding of removal. 

The BIA affirmed both the IJ’s determination as to the firm 

resettlement bar and its credibility findings. Regarding firm resettlement, the BIA noted that DHS had presented substantial evidence that Petitioner received an offer of firm resettlement in Brazil—specifically, Petitioner’s testimony that he was authorized to 

work and live in Brazil, that he could travel within the country, that 

he had lived there for approximately three years and four months 

before traveling to the United States, and that he had a child who 

was born in Brazil and who lived there with his mother—which 

Petitioner failed to rebut. Based on this evidence, the BIA affirmed 

the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner was not statutorily eligible for 

asylum because of his firm resettlement in Brazil. 

As to credibility, the BIA concluded that Petitioner was not 

entitled to either asylum or withholding of removal as a result of 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 10 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 11

the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. In support of its conclusion the BIA cited: (1) the inconsistency between Petitioner’s statements during his initial interview with US immigration officials, his 

two subsequent I-589 applications, and his testimony at the merits 

hearing, (2) discrepancies between Petitioner’s two I-589 applications and his testimony regarding the date, number, and manner of 

Joseph’s alleged attacks, and the number of times Petitioner reported the attacks to the police, and (3) Petitioner’s use of false 

names and a false country of origin to facilitate his travel to the 

United States. The BIA explained that the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination warranted denial of Petitioner’s application for 

withholding of removal and that it also constituted an alternative 

ground upon which to deny his application for asylum. 

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, appeals the BIA’s decision. In 

support of his appeal, Petitioner claims that he did not intend to 

resettle in Brazil, that he stayed there for only five months, and that 

he did not establish significant ties there. Petitioner argues further 

that evidence in the record indicates that he was subjected to 

threats in Haiti based on his political opinion, and that the evidence 

further demonstrates his past and likely future persecution in Haiti 

based on his political affiliation. As discussed below, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and thus affirm the BIA’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 11 of 20
12 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

DISCUSSION 

I. Standard of Review 

“When the BIA issues a decision” in a case arising under the 

INA, “we review only that decision, except to the extent the BIA 

expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 

F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). “Where the BIA agrees with the 

IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ 

to the extent of the agreement.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 

F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 

On petition for review of a BIA decision, we review legal 

conclusions de novo and factual determinations under the substantial evidence test. See id. To apply the substantial evidence test, 

we “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the 

[BIA]’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that 

decision.” Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1286 

(11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). Construing the record 

in that manner, we must “affirm the BIA’s factual findings so long 

as they are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted). To reverse a finding of fact made by the BIA, we “must 

find that the record not only supports reversal, but compels it.” Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019) 

(quotation marks omitted). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 12 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 13

II. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 

Petitioner’s I-589 application seeks asylum and withholding 

of removal pursuant to sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the INA. 

To obtain asylum, Petitioner must show that he qualifies as a “refugee” within the meaning of the INA. INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1). As relevant here, the INA defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his home country and who cannot return 

to that country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INA 

§ 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 

Petitioner, as the asylum applicant, bears the burden of 

proving that he satisfies the INA’s definition of a refugee. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). He can carry that burden by presenting 

“specific and credible evidence” that he suffered past persecution 

on account of a statutorily listed factor or that he has a “wellfounded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future persecution.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 

2006) (quotation marks omitted). Where an asylum applicant establishes past persecution, a rebuttable presumption arises that he 

has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. If the applicant cannot show past persecution, he must demonstrate a “wellfounded fear of future persecution that is both subjectively genuine 

and objectively reasonable. Id. See also Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1200 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that an asylum applicant can prove he has a well-founded fear of future 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 13 of 20
14 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

persecution by establishing a reasonable possibility he will suffer 

persecution based on a protected ground upon return to his home 

country). 

An applicant who “firmly resettled in another country prior 

to arriving in the United States” is statutorily ineligible for asylum. 

INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(vi), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). Under the governing regulations in effect when the IJ denied Petitioner’s asylum 

application, the firm resettlement bar applies when “prior to arrival 

in the United States, [the applicant] entered into another country 

with, or while in that country received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (effective until Jan. 11, 2021). The regulation provides two exceptions to the firm resettlement bar. First, 

an applicant is not considered firmly resettled if he entered the third 

country as “a necessary consequence of his . . . flight from persecution” and if he “remained in that country only as long as was necessary to arrange onward travel, and . . . did not establish significant 

ties” there. Id. § 1208.15(a). Second, an applicant is not considered 

firmly resettled if the conditions of his residence in the third country were “so substantially and consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refuge that he . . . was not in fact resettled.” 

Id. § 1208.15(b). 

Similar to qualifying for asylum, Petitioner can show he is 

entitled to withholding of removal by proving that, if returned to 

his country, his life or freedom would be threatened on account of 

his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 14 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 15

group, or political opinion.” INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A). To carry his burden of proof as to withholding of 

removal, Petitioner must demonstrate that he would “more likely 

than not” be persecuted if returned to his country. D-Muhumed v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks 

omitted). If Petitioner is unable to establish that he qualifies for 

asylum, he cannot meet the “more stringent” standard for withholding of removal. Id.

A. Credibility 

We consider the credibility issue first, because it is dispositive of Petitioner’s application for asylum as well as his application 

for withholding of removal. See id. (“[B]ecause [the applicant] cannot meet the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, it is a fortiori

that he cannot meet the withholding of removal standard.”). As 

noted, the IJ excluded the documents Petitioner proffered on the 

day of the merits hearing as untimely. Petitioner did not appeal 

that decision to the BIA or to this Court, and he did not offer any 

other corroborating evidence to support his persecution claim, 

which is the basis of his application for asylum and withholding of 

removal. “An adverse credibility determination coupled with a 

lack of corroborating evidence for a claim of persecution means 

that the applicant’s claim fails.” Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

676 F.3d 962, 967 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Credibility determinations, like other factual findings, “are 

reviewed under the substantial evidence test.” Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 493 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The trier of fact 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 15 of 20
16 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

must determine credibility, and this court may not substitute its 

judgment for that of the BIA with respect to credibility findings.” 

(quotation marks omitted)). Although a credibility determination 

may not be based on “speculation and conjecture,” the BIA has 

broad discretion to assess an applicant’s credibility and need only 

provide “specific, cogent reasons” to support an adverse credibility 

determination. Id. (quotation marks omitted). When the BIA has 

made an adverse credibility determination, the applicant has the 

burden to show that the determination “was not supported by specific, cogent reasons or was not based on substantial evidence.” Id. 

(quotation marks omitted). 

The BIA provided specific and cogent reasons in support of 

its decision to affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination here, 

namely: (1) Petitioner’s sworn statement to US immigration officials in June 2016 that he had come to the United States for economic reasons, that he had not been harmed, threatened, or otherwise persecuted in Haiti, that he had no fear of returning to Haiti, 

and that he was not a member of a political group in Haiti, all of 

which was directly contrary to Petitioner’s later filed I-589 applications and his testimony at the merits hearing, (2) additional discrepancies between Petitioner’s I-589 applications and his testimony regarding the details surrounding the attacks he allegedly suffered, 

including the number of attacks, the date they occurred, and the 

number of times Petitioner reported the attacks to the police, and 

(3) Petitioner’s use of false names and a false country of origin to 

facilitate his travel to the United States. Pursuant to the REAL ID 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 16 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 17

Act, which governs Petitioner’s application, the BIA’s stated reasons for affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination ae all 

relevant and valid considerations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) 

(“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the 

inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the 

consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 

statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and 

considering the circumstances under which the statements were 

made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and 

any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard 

to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the 

heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.”).

Furthermore, the reasons set out by the BIA for affirming 

the IJ’s adverse credibility determination are supported by substantial evidence in the record. It is undisputed that Petitioner’s initial 

statement to US immigration officials directly contravenes his 

later-filed I-589 applications and testimony. The only explanation 

Petitioner offered for his conflicting statements and testimony is 

that he was “stressed” during the June 2016 interview. It was 

within the BIA’s discretion to reject that explanation, especially 

given that Petitioner swore to the veracity of his June 2016 statement and to the fact that it was made freely and voluntarily. See 

Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 17 of 20
18 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

(explaining that an applicant’s explanation for an inconsistency—

even if it is tenable—does not warrant reversal if the explanation 

does not “compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse the IJ’s credibility determination”). Petitioner did not offer any explanation for 

the other discrepancies noted by the BIA, and he admitted that he 

used false information to facilitate his travel to the United States. 

In short, there is no basis for overturning the BIA’s decision 

to affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The BIA provided specific, cogent reasons for its decision, all of which are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Given that Petitioner 

failed to testify credibly as to his persecution claim, and the lack of 

any other corroborating evidence to support his claim, we affirm 

the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and his application for 

withholding of removal. 

B. Firm Resettlement 

We note that the BIA also correctly determined that Petitioner is statutorily ineligible for asylum pursuant to the firm resettlement bar. The BIA determined that the bar applied to Petitioner 

based on evidence in the record showing that Petitioner had been 

offered firm resettlement in Brazil before he entered the United 

States in June 2016. There is substantial—and unrebutted—evidence in the record to support that determination. Petitioner advised US immigration officials during his initial interview that he 

had residency in Brazil as well as Haiti, and he later acknowledged 

in his I-589 application that he had been given residency status in 

Brazil. Petitioner subsequently testified at the merits hearing that 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 18 of 20
21-10952 Opinion of the Court 19

he was authorized to work and live in Brazil, that he could travel 

within the country, that he had lived in Brazil for approximately 

three years and four months before traveling to the United States, 

and that he had a child who was born in Brazil and who currently 

lived there with his mother. That evidence was more than adequate to show, under the governing regulations in effect at the time 

of Petitioner’s merits hearing, that Petitioner had firmly resettled 

in Brazil before he traveled to the United States. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.15 (effective until Jan. 11, 2021) (“An alien is considered to 

be firmly resettled if, prior to arrival in the United States, he or she 

entered into another country with, or while in that country received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some 

other type of permanent resettlement.”).3 

Petitioner did not rebut the evidence relied upon by the BIA 

to establish firm resettlement, nor did he offer any evidence to 

show that an exception to the firm resettlement bar applied in his 

case. Again, under the operative regulations an exception to the 

bar applies when: (1) the applicant’s entry into a third country was 

“a necessary consequence of his . . . flight from persecution” and 

3 The firm resettlement bar would also apply to Petitioner under the current 

regulations, which provide, in relevant part and with exceptions that do not 

apply here, that an alien is considered to be firmly resettled if he “resided voluntarily, and without continuing to suffer persecution in any one country for 

one year or more after departing his country of nationality or last habitual 

residence and prior to arrival in or entry into the United States.” See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.15(a)(2) (effective Jan. 11, 2021). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 19 of 20
20 Opinion of the Court 21-10952

he “did not establish significant ties” there, or (2) the conditions of 

the applicant’s residence in the third country were “substantially 

and consciously restricted by the authority of the country.” See 28 

C.F.R. §§ 1208.15(a) and (b) (effective until Jan. 11, 2021). Petitioner admitted in his filings and his testimony below that he lived 

in Brazil for more than three years, during which time he established significant ties, including fathering a son who as of the time 

of Petitioner’s merits hearing still lived in Brazil with his mother. 

Petitioner claims in the appellate brief he filed in this Court that he 

was only in Brazil for five months, but that claim contradicts all the 

evidence presented below. Petitioner also argues in support of his 

appeal that he was subject to discrimination in Brazil, but he does 

not show—and he made no effort to show below—that the discrimination was imposed by the Brazilian government or that the 

conditions of his residence in Brazil were otherwise “substantially 

and consciously restricted” by the Brazilian government. See Id. 

§ 1208.15(b). Accordingly, the BIA correctly denied Petitioner’s application for asylum on the alternative ground that the application 

was precluded by the firm resettlement bar. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

PETITION DENIED 

USCA11 Case: 21-10952 Date Filed: 05/17/2022 Page: 20 of 20