[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12727

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087-375-673

SADRIDDIN ASLIEVICH NASRIEV, 

NODIRA AHRORKULOVNA BARATOVA, 

 Petitioners,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(July 7, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 1 of 11 
2

Sadriddin Aslievich Nasriev and Nodira Ahrorkulovna Baratova, a husband 

and wife who are citizens of Uzbekistan, petition for review of the final order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of their applications for withholding of 

removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

On appeal, Nasriev and Baratova argue that the IJ erred in making an adverse 

credibility determination based on Nasriev’s lack of detailed knowledge of his 

Baptist faith, inconsistencies between Petitioners’ written applications and their 

testimony, and omissions in Nasriev’s application for withholding of removal and 

CAT relief. They also argue that there is a pattern or practice of religious 

persecution in Uzbekistan and that as Baptists, they would more likely than not be

arrested and tortured by Uzbek authorities if forced to return to Uzbekistan. As

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s findings, we deny the petition. 

I.

When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision except to the 

extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 

F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). “Insofar as the [BIA] adopts the IJ’s reasoning,

we will review the IJ’s decision as well.” Id. Here, the BIA expressly adopted the 

IJ’s decision and briefly articulated its reasons for doing so. Thus, we review the 

decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 2 of 11 
3

We review the factual determination that an alien is ineligible for 

withholding of removal and CAT relief under the highly deferential substantial

evidence test, and we will affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is supported by 

reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a 

whole.” Id. at 1283–84 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Under the substantial evidence test, we view the record evidence in 

the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. . . . In sum, findings of 

fact made by administrative agencies, such as the BIA, may be 

reversed by this court only when the record compels a reversal; the 

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

enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.

Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We review 

legal determinations de novo, Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 860 (11th 

Cir. 2007), but we review factual findings, including credibility determinations, 

under the substantial evidence test. Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 1318, 

1323 (11th Cir. 2010). 

An applicant’s testimony, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain his burden 

of proof in establishing eligibility for relief from removal without corroborating 

evidence. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Conversely, if the applicant relies solely on his testimony, an adverse credibility 

determination may alone be sufficient to support the denial of his application. Id. 

If the applicant produces evidence other than his testimony, the IJ must consider 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 3 of 11 
4

that evidence and cannot rely solely on an adverse credibility determination. Id. 

The weaker the applicant’s testimony, the greater the need for corroborating 

evidence. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005).

When making credibility determinations, the IJ must consider the totality of 

the circumstances, including the witness’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness, 

the inherent plausibility of the account, the consistency among and within all oral 

and written statements and other evidence of record, and any inaccuracies and 

falsehoods in the statements. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(C), 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 

Todorovic, 621 F.3d at 1324. These determinations are made “without regard to 

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

applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

567 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009). 

The IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility 

determination. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255. Once such a determination is made, the 

burden is on the applicant to show that the IJ’s credibility finding was not 

supported by specific, cogent reasons or was not based on substantial evidence. Id. 

Even where a petitioner offers tenable explanations for the implausibilities in his 

claim, we will not reverse an adverse credibility determination unless those 

explanations would compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse. See Chen v. U.S. 

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

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 4 of 11 
5

II.

An alien is entitled to withholding of removal if he can show that if 

removed, his life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal 

because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Delgado, 487 F.3d at 860–61. The 

burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal rests with the alien, who 

must show that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted or tortured 

upon being removed. Delgado, 487 F.3d at 861. 

The alien can meet his burden in two ways. First, he can demonstrate past 

persecution in his home country based on a protected ground, in which case a 

rebuttable presumption arises that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, 

and the burden shifts to the government to show that conditions in the country have 

fundamentally changed or that the alien could reasonably relocate within the 

country of removal and thereby avoid a future threat. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). 

Second, the alien may establish that he more likely than not would be persecuted in 

the future based on a protected ground, either because the alien would be singled 

out for persecution or because (1) there is a pattern or practice in the applicant’s 

home country “of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the 

applicant on account of” a protected ground, and (2) “[t]he applicant establishes his 

or her own inclusion in and identification with such group of persons such that it is 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 5 of 11 
6

more likely than not that his or her life or freedom would be threatened upon return

to that country.” Id. § 1208.16(b)(2). If the IJ finds that the alien could avoid that 

future threat by relocating to another part of his home country, the alien cannot 

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted or tortured 

if removed. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). 

“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept, requiring more than a few isolated 

incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Delgado, 487 F.3d at 861 

(alteration in original) (quoting Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 

(11th Cir. 2005)). In determining whether an alien has suffered past persecution, 

the IJ must consider the cumulative effects of the alleged incidents. Id. To show a 

well-founded fear of future persecution, the BIA has required that there be 

“systemic, pervasive, or organized” persecution of the petitioner’s group. See, 

e.g., In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005). Moreover, in assessing the 

circumstances in a country to determine whether a pattern or practice of 

persecution exists, the BIA is entitled to rely heavily on country reports prepared 

by the State Department. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 

1354 (11th Cir. 2009).

In this case, the IJ and the BIA found that Petitioners failed to meet their 

burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that they would be persecuted 

upon return to Uzbekistan based on their religious beliefs. Substantial evidence 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 6 of 11 
7

supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations and their 

findings that Petitioners did not meet their burden to establish past persecution or a 

well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ provided specific, cogent reasons 

to support its adverse credibility determination, and the record does not compel a 

finding that Nasriev and Baratova were credible. 

The IJ cited several reasons behind its adverse credibility determination: (1) 

Nasriev’s inability to provide specific details about his involvement in his church 

in Uzbekistan, his fellow members in the church, or the church’s activities, (2) the 

lack of corroborating evidence or effort to obtain evidence of Nasriev’s 

involvement in his church in Uzbekistan, (3) the improbability that Nasriev’s

attackers, even those who did not know him personally, would know the sect of

Christianity to which he belonged and would use “Baptist” to insult him, (4) 

Nasriev’s lack of substantive testimony about his alleged persecution, (5) Nasriev’s 

lack of basic knowledge about religious doctrine, (6) the fact that Nasriev and 

Baratova did not begin attending church immediately upon their entry into the 

United States, (7) inconsistencies between Nasriev’s and Baratova’s testimonies, 

and (8) numerous omissions in Nasriev’s application. The record does not compel 

reversal of the IJ’s and the BIA’s findings on these matters. 

For instance, Nasriev failed to provide specific details about his conversion 

from Islam to Christianity and about his religious activities in Uzbekistan. He also 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 7 of 11 
8

failed to offer any corroborating evidence about his involvement with the Baptist 

church in Uzbekistan or about other church members. And his claim that his 

neighbors used terms like “Baptist dog” to insult him, when those neighbors lived 

in a remote area of Uzbekistan in which Nasriev claimed resided only about twelve 

Baptists, was also implausible, as his neighbors most likely would not have an 

understanding of Christian denominations. Moreover, Nasriev’s testimony 

regarding his arrest and physical abuse was somewhat inconsistent with his wife’s 

testimony about the same incidents. 

Furthermore, during an interview with an asylum officer, Nasriev was 

unable to name the Gospels and named Moses and Abraham as apostles. This 

inability to articulate basic religious doctrine may not undermine the sincerity of 

Nasriev’s faith, but it casts doubt on his credibility regarding his assertion that he 

has been a proselytizing Baptist for over thirty years. See Mezvrishvili v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 467 F.3d 1292, 1296 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that a petitioner 

claiming religious persecution need not demonstrate “the knowledge of a 

seminarian” at the hearing but that lack of detailed doctrinal knowledge may be 

relevant to an applicant’s credibility even if it is irrelevant to the sincerity of his 

beliefs). In addition, Nasriev and Baratova did not begin attending church in the 

United States for months after entering the country, and their testimony regarding 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 8 of 11 
9

when they started attending church in this country was inconsistent and also 

conflicted with the documentary evidence provided by their pastors. 

Also undermining Nasriev’s credibility is that he omitted information from 

his application for withholding of removal and CAT relief, such as his prior 

military service in the Soviet army, his arrest in the United States for petit theft, the 

fact that he used an alias when arrested, and the fact that he had assistance in 

preparing his application. Although Petitioners argued that these omissions were 

the result of Nasriev’s misunderstanding of the application questions, we cannot 

say that such an explanation compels reversal of the adverse credibility finding. 

See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1233 (“[W]hile [the petitioner]’s explanations of the 

implausible aspects of his claim are tenable, we cannot say, especially given the 

relative lack of corroborating evidence, that these explanations would compel a 

reasonable fact finder to reverse the IJ’s credibility determination.”). 

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determinations that 

Nasriev and Baratova did not meet their burden of demonstrating that they would 

be singled out for persecution upon return to Uzbekistan or that a pattern or 

practice of persecuting Baptists or other evangelical lay Christians exists in 

Uzbekistan. Evidence of country conditions shows that Uzbekistan is generally a 

place of religious tolerance, and although Baptists and evangelical Christians have 

difficulty registering their churches with the government and may face arrest or 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 9 of 11 
10

fines for worshipping with unregistered churches, such difficulty does not rise to 

the level of persecution. In any event, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and 

the BIA’s conclusions that Nasriev and Baratova could relocate safely and 

reasonably to Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, as Nasriev previously studied at 

a university in Tashkent without suffering persecution for his faith. Thus, 

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determinations that Petitioners

failed to meet their burden of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. 

III.

To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant must establish that it is more 

likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 

removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 532 

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 158 (2013). For purposes of CAT: 

Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, 

whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for 

such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person 

information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she 

or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, 

or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any 

reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or 

suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or 

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official 

capacity.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Furthermore, “[t]orture is an extreme form of cruel and 

inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or 

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 10 of 11 
11

degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.” Id.

§ 1208.18(a)(2).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determinations that 

Petitioners here did not meet their burden of showing that it is more likely than not 

that they would be tortured upon return to Uzbekistan at the hands of or with the 

acquiescence of a public official. Petitioners relied on the same facts to support 

their applications for withholding of removal and for protection under CAT, and at 

worst, the record evidence shows that Petitioners may face fines or imprisonment 

for worshipping in an unregistered church in Uzbekistan, which is not tantamount 

to torture. Petitioners have therefore failed to meet their burden of establishing 

eligibility for CAT relief. 

Upon careful review of the entire record on appeal and of the parties’ 

appellate briefs, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 13-12727 Date Filed: 07/07/2014 Page: 11 of 11