[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-15094

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A215-735-001

MAEEN UDDIN, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 7, 2020)

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 1 of 9
2

Facing removal from the United States for entering and remaining without 

authorization, Maeen Uddin, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, applied for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”). Uddin claimed that he had twice been physically attacked by 

members of the ruling Awami League party due to his active membership in an 

opposition party, and that he feared persecution by the Awami League if he returned 

to Bangladesh. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications and ordered his 

removal. The IJ determined that Uddin’s testimony was not credible for several 

reasons, including that he was evasive and gave inconsistent answers. Uddin 

appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s 

adverse credibility determination and determined that Uddin failed to meet the 

standard for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Uddin now petitions 

this Court for review of the BIA’s decision. 

We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA 

expressly adopted or agreed with the IJ’s opinion. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 

941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA 

has found that the IJ’s reasons were supported by the record, and we review the 

BIA’s decision with regard to those matters on which it rendered its own opinion 

and reasoning. See Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011). 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 2 of 9
3

Here, we will review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions to the extent of their 

agreement. See id.

We review factual findings, including credibility determinations, under the 

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

2006); see D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The 

trier of fact must determine credibility, and [we] may not substitute [our] judgment 

for that of the BIA with respect to credibility findings.”). Review for substantial 

evidence is deferential and is based on a construction of the record evidence that is 

most favorable to the agency’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 

1341, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2009). We must affirm the agency’s decision “if it is 

supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record 

considered as a whole.” Id. at 1351 (quotation marks omitted). Findings of fact may 

be reversed only if the record compels a different result. Id. In other words, the 

mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify 

reversal of the agency’s findings. Id. 

A noncitizen applying for asylum must prove, with reliable and specific 

evidence, that he is a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Forgue v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). A refugee is someone unable or 

unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 3 of 9
4

a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The 

applicant must demonstrate that he (1) was persecuted in the past on account of a 

protected ground or (2) has a well-founded fear that he will be persecuted in the 

future on account of a protected ground. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257. An applicant for 

withholding of removal must establish similar, but more stringent, requirements. DMuhumed, 388 F.3d at 819. Finally, an applicant seeking protection under CAT 

must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the 

acquiescence of the government if removed. Id. at 819–20.

The applicant’s credible testimony, standing alone, may be sufficient to meet 

his burden. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2006). But if 

the applicant is found not credible and has not provided any corroborating evidence, 

an adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of 

his claims for relief from removal. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. Nevertheless, where 

the applicant offers evidence beyond his own testimony, the agency has a duty to 

consider that other evidence even if it finds that the applicant is not credible. Id. 

In challenging an adverse credibility finding, the noncitizen bears the burden 

of showing that it “was not supported by specific, cogent reasons or was not based 

on substantial evidence.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Factors relevant to a 

credibility determination include, but are not limited to the demeanor, candor, and 

responsiveness of the applicant; the plausibility of the applicant’s account; the 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 4 of 9
5

consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements; the internal 

consistency of each statement; and the consistency of the applicant’s statements with 

other record evidence, including country reports. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

Inconsistencies and inaccuracies need not “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim” 

to support an adverse credibility finding, id., but they also cannot be “wholly 

immaterial,” Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Moreover, because of the deferential standard of review, a reasonable explanation 

for inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony does not necessarily compel reversal 

of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Chen, 463 F.3d at 1233.

The BIA offered two main reasons for agreeing with the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination: (1) Uddin provided “evasive, vague and internally 

inconsistent testimony” when questioned about his reasons for obtaining a passport 

four months before the February 2018 assault that purportedly precipitated his 

departure from Bangladesh; and (2) Uddin’s testimony that he was on a “target list” 

and feared for his life was vague and equivocal and inconsistent with his decision to 

depart Bangladesh through ordinary channels using a government-issued passport

that bore his name.

1

1 The BIA disagreed with the IJ’s other stated reasons for the adverse credibility 

determination, but it concluded that the determination was still valid because the IJ otherwise relied 

on permissible considerations that were supported by the record. 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 5 of 9
6

Here, Uddin has not shown that the record compels a finding that he provided 

credible testimony in support of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and CAT relief. The BIA offered specific and cogent reasons, supported by 

substantial evidence, for sustaining the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. 

As to the first reason, the BIA explained that Uddin, despite being given 

multiple “opportunities to explain what his reasons were for obtaining a passport,” 

“simply repeated that it was not his intention to leave the country.” While Uddin 

initially stated that he had hired an agent to procure him a passport because he was 

“having some difficulties at home” or “some problem[s],” he did not explain what 

these difficulties or problems were in response to questioning by both the 

government and the IJ. Uddin later asserted that there were “many, many problems 

. . . going on inside the country,” but the only example he cited, though certainly 

terrible, was the death of a friend in December 2018 that, as the BIA noted, occurred

after Uddin had already obtained his passport and left the country. The BIA 

concluded that this “vacillating and unresponsive” testimony supported the IJ’s 

decision not to credit Uddin’s explanations regarding why he obtained a passport 

months before his alleged February 2018 assault. 

Uddin maintains that his testimony on this matter was “consistent and 

credible” and that people routinely obtain passports for purposes other than when 

they are preparing to leave their country immediately, such as identification. But in 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 6 of 9
7

light of Uddin’s inability to provide a clear or consistent answer for why he obtained 

the passport, other than repeatedly insisting that he did not obtain the passport in 

anticipation of leaving the country, and his invocation of an event that occurred after 

he had already obtained the passport, we must conclude that the adverse credibility 

determination was based on specific, cogent reasons and was supported by 

substantial evidence. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.

As to the second reason, the BIA found that the IJ reasonably doubted Uddin’s 

assertion that he was on a “target list” that subjected him to being killed by the 

Awami League with the help of the police. Uddin testified the Awami League 

maintained a “target list” and that individuals on this list were found, abducted, and 

killed. As the BIA noted, though, Uddin’s testimony as to how he came to know 

about the target list was “very vague and equivocal.” Uddin simply stated that 

“somehow or other we have come to know that this is the system.” The BIA further 

discounted Uddin’s testimony on these matters because he had used a governmentissued passport in his name to depart Bangladesh through ordinary means in April 

2018. The BIA found that this action was inconsistent with his stated fear of being 

found and killed by the Awami League, who he said had a “very strong connection 

network” throughout the country and a “direct connection with the police.” 

Uddin responds that he was “being persecuted by a local organization of the 

Awami League, which does not necessarily preclude applying for and obtaining a 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 7 of 9
8

passport in the usual way.” Yet Uddin testified that he was not safe anywhere in the 

country due to the Awami League’s “very strong connection network” “all over the 

country.” In light of Uddin’s testimony about the breadth and strength of the Awami 

League’s influence, we cannot conclude it was unreasonable for the BIA and IJ to 

find his actions in leaving the country somewhat inconsistent with this testimony. 

So while the record may be viewed to support a contrary conclusion, we cannot say 

it compels a finding that Uddin’s testimony on these points was credible. See 

Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351.

For these reasons, we conclude that the BIA and IJ offered specific and cogent 

reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for the adverse credibility finding.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Uddin could not 

sustain his burdens for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief in the absence 

of credible testimony. See id. Without his credible testimony, Uddin cannot show 

that he was subject to past persecution in Bangladesh. Nor does Uddin appear to 

contend that his other evidence—consisting of letters and affidavits from family, 

friends, and members of his party, among others—independently established a wellfounded fear of future persecution or otherwise met his burden for relief from 

removal. Rather, Uddin continues to rely on his testimony in arguing that he 

established eligibility for asylum and entitlement to withholding of removal and 

CAT relief. We therefore defer to the BIA’s conclusion on these matters. 

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 8 of 9
9

In sum, we deny Uddin’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 9 of 9