FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 70 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -8 99 -7 61
NILCA MARTINS- DE OLIVEIRA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er,

ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Nil ca M art in s- De Oli ve ira(“ Pet it io ne r”) s eek s re vi ew of th e Bo ardofIm

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) affi rm an ce o f th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) o rd er of rem ov ab il ity

aft er fi nd in g t ha t Pe ti ti on er was no t cr ed ib le , andth atsh e fai le d t o es tabl is h t ha t s he ha d b eenadm it te d t o the Uni te d S ta te s. In20 08 , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y serve d P et it io ne r, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof B razi l, wi th a Not ic e to App ear, ch arg in g h er as rem ov ab le pu rs ua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ), as anali enpre se ntinth e Uni te d S ta te s wh o h ad
no t b eenadm it te d o r pa ro le d. Pe ti ti on er co nt en de d t ha t s he was a dm it te d o r pa ro le d, an d t he refo re was eli gi bl e fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus an d wai ve r to cure h er frau du le ntadm is si on . The IJ fou ndth atPet it io ne r was no t cr ed ib le an d t ha t s he fai le d t o s at is fy

he r bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g h er t im e, m an ne r, an d d at e o f en try. A s su ch , sh e was rem ov ab le an d n oten ti tl edto ad jus tm en t o f st atus . The BI A affi rm edan d a gr eedth atPet it io ne r was no t cr ed ib le ba se d upo n m ul ti pl e in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenhe r te st im on y an d t he ev id en ce s he subm it te d, an d t he factth athe r te st im on y

was unc le ar an d c ha ng eddu rin g t he co ur se of t he pr oc eed in gs . The BI A als o d et erm in edth atPet it io ne r fai le d t o s ub m itdi rect ev id en ce tha t s he en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s u si ng a ph ot o- swi tc he d, fr au du le nt pa ss po rt. Pet it io ne r no w arg ue s tha t s he co ul d s eeka waiv er o f he r un lawfu l en try and
anad jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se th e ev id en ce an d h er t es ti m on y est ab li sh edth at 2sh e en te redus in g aph ot o- swi tc he d p as sp ort an d was , th eref or e, in sp ect edan d adm it te d. Pe ti ti on er as se rts th atth e IJus edam bi gu ou s an d s ub

jecti ve lan gu ag e with re sp ectto he r cre di bi li ty, an d i ts reas on in g was no t s pe ci fic or c og en t, th ereb y pre ve nt in g p ro pe r rev ie w by th e BIA. Add it io na ll y , Pet it io ne r arg ue s tha t 1 th e IJfai le d t o a ctas ane ut ral an d i m parti al arb it er dur in g h er re m ov al pr oc eed in gs . I. W e rev ie w on ly the de ci si on of t he BIA, ex cep t t o t he ex te ntth atit
ex pr es sl y ad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n. Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e wil l n otrev ie w th e IJ ’s fin di ng s o r co nc lu si on s tha t the BIA d idno t ad op t o r ap pr ov e. Lo pe z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen
. , 50 4 F .3d13 41 , 13 44 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Here, th e BIA af firm edth e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n a nd st at edth atth ere was no cle ar erro r in th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty find in g, wh ic h t he BIA fo un d was supp orte d b y sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s. Thus , th e BIA ap pr ov edth e IJ ’s reas on in g wi thres pe ctto th e adve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, s o we wi ll rev ie w th e IJ ’s reas on in g a s wel l. Se e Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 0. Petitioner also argues that the I J ’s cr edibility deter mination was improper a s it was 1 based upon stric ter, post-Septembe r 11, 2001, airline se curity policies. We need not c onsider Petitioner’s arguments pertainingto post-September 11, 2001, sec urity policies bec ause she did not raise this argument befor e the B IA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (prohibiting re view of unexhausted claims); Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (pe r curiam). 3W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l co nc lu si on s o f th e BIA an d t he IJ, an d we

rev ie w fin di ng s o f fac t fo r subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Id . W e m us t af firm th e BIA’s de ci si on if i t i s “ supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n th e rec or d c on si de redas awho le . Thatm ean s a f in di ng of f

actwil l b e rev ers ed
on ly whe n t he reco rdco m pe ls a rev ers al ; the m ere f actth atth e rec or d m ay

supp ort a co nt rary con cl us io n i s n oten ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al .” Lo

pe z , 50 4 F .3dat 1 34 4 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The IJ, i n e va lu at in g c red ib il ity , m us t co ns id er the “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” in cl ud in g

de m ean or , can do r, or res po ns iv e n e s s of th e ap pl ic an t or witne ss , th e in he ren t pl au si bi li t y 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 w i t n es s’s writ te n an d or al st at em en ts (wh en ev er m ad e an d whe th er or no t un de r o ath, 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 i s t e n cy 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 o t h er 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 s u c h s t a t em en ts , witho ut reg ard t o w h e t h e r a n in co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se ho od go es to th e he art of th e ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m , or any oth er re le vantfact or . 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Th e BIA an d t he IJ m us t co ns id er al l ev id en ce the ap pl ic an t i nt ro du ces . Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 1. Th e IJm us t m ak e a cl ean de te rm in at io n o f cre di bi li ty, su chth atth e rev ie win g c ou rt i s n ot“ le ft i n t he da rk ” 4as to whet he r th e IJbe li ev es th e as y lu m see ke r’s te st im on y . Y

an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An i m pl ic itfin di ng th atth e te st im on y is no t cr ed ib le is no t s uf

fic ie nt . Id
. “ The [IJ ] m

us t co ns id er the is su es rai se d andan no un ce i ts de ci si on interm s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le a rev ie win g c ou rt t o pe rcei ve th atitha s h eardan d tho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F.3 d a t 1 35 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Whe n t he BIA uph ol ds anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, the pe ti ti on er h as th e bu rd ento sh ow tha t the cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n “ was no t s up po rte d b y sp eci fic , co ge ntreas on s o r was no t b as edon subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e v. U.S. At t’y Gen
. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m 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 fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Id
. at12 86 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Like an y ot he r fac tu al fin di ng , a cred ib il ity

de te rm in at io n “ m ay

no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss th e rec or d c om pe ls it .” Id . at 1 28 7 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The BIA an d IJ ga ve sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r fi nd in g P et it io ne r no t cred ib le . Spe ci fic al ly, bo th no te d i nc on si st en ci es be twee n P et it io ne r’s te st im on y an d t he nu m ero us do cu m en ts th atsh e subm it te d— in cl ud in g i nc on si st en ci es be twee n h er t es ti m on y , th e d at es on th e p la ne ti ck et , th e lu gg ag e cl ai m ti ck et , th e 5ho te l re cei pt , andth e tr av el it in erary . Mor eo ve r, Pet it io ne r co ul d n otpro du ce the

or ig in al ph ot o- swi tc he d p as sp ort tha t s he all eg ed ly use d t o e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s, no r co ul d s he pro du ce a c op y . Thu s, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s
reas on s fo r di sc red it in g P et it io ne r. Acco rd in gl y , we den y Pet it io ne r’s pe ti ti on for
rev ie w as t o t hi s i ss ue . II. Bec au se Pet it io ne r fai le d t o ra is e th e is su e o f th e IJ ’s im pa rti al it y be fo re the BIA, we la ck

juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er thi s cl ai m . Se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ); Amaya -Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s Pe ti ti on er’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w as t o t hi s i ss ue . DENIE D IN PART, DISMI SSED I N PART.

6