[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12116

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A208-696-241

PERDRO RAMON ZAPATA-RIVERO, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(March 1, 2021)

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 1 of 7
2

Perdro Zapata-Rivero petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum 

pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 

1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and 

relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). 

First, Zapata-Rivero argues that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding, 

in denying him asylum and withholding of removal, was not supported by substantial 

evidence. Second, he argues that the BIA did not fully consider his claim that the 

Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding should not have automatically 

foreclosed CAT relief.

In petitions for review of BIA decisions, we review factual determinations 

under the substantial evidence test and conclusions of law de novo. Gonzalez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). When the BIA agrees with the 

reasoning of the Immigration Judge, we review both decisions. Id. The substantial 

evidence test is “highly deferential,” and 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.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 

2009) (quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the BIA’s decision “if it is 

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

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 2 of 7
3

considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To reverse, the record must 

compel a contrary conclusion, and the mere fact that the record may support a 

different conclusion is not sufficient. Id.

An alien has the burden to prove that he is eligible for asylum and for 

withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(a), 1208.16(b). For asylum, an alien 

must establish (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed protected 

ground, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily protected ground will cause 

future persecution. Diallo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 596 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Protected grounds include “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). 

For withholding of removal, an alien must show “that [his] life or freedom 

would be threatened . . . because of” a statutorily protected ground, and it is more 

likely than not that he would be persecuted. Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724, 

728 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Because the standard for 

withholding of removal is more stringent than the standard for asylum, an alien who 

unsuccessfully applies for asylum cannot obtain withholding of removal. Id.; 

Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).

To establish his eligibility for relief, an alien must offer “credible, direct, and 

specific evidence in the record.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (quotation marks 

omitted). The IJ determines whether an alien is credible. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 3 of 7
4

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); INA § 241(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). In 

doing so, it must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” which includes the 

alien’s demeanor, inconsistencies between his testimony and prior statements, and 

inconsistencies between his testimony and other evidence in the record. 

INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

An Immigration Judge may make an adverse credibility finding even if the 

inconsistencies do not go to the heart of the claim. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 

1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006). An “extremely detailed adverse credibility 

determination alone may be sufficient to support the IJ’s denial of” relief. DMuhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2004). When making an 

adverse credibility determination, the Immigration Judge must offer “specific, 

cogent reasons,” and must consider any additional evidence introduced. Forgue, 

401 F.3d at 1287. To be considered an adverse-credibility determination, the 

Immigration Judge or BIA must state explicitly that the applicant’s testimony was 

not credible. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005).

An alien who fails to argue an issue in his initial brief to us abandons it, and 

we will not review the claim. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 

(11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, we lack jurisdiction to hear claims that were not raised 

and exhausted before the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 

1247, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2006); INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We may 

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 4 of 7
5

deny a petition based on an Immigration Judge’s alternative holding if (1) the BIA 

expressly addressed that holding, and (2) the government asked us to rely on it. See 

cf. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining 

that we usually may affirm on any grounds supported by the record, but declining to 

do so when the government did not argue in support of the alternative findings in its 

brief, and the BIA did not adopt the Immigration Judge’s opinion); see also cf. 

Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2013) (declining to rely 

on an alternative holding when the BIA did not consider the issue).

As an initial matter, Zapata-Rivero has only petitioned for review of the 

Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. Thus, he has abandoned any 

challenge to the Immigration Judge’s and BIA’s alternative findings that his 

evidence, even if credible, was weak and uncorroborated, and therefore, he did not 

meet his burden for withholding for removal or asylum. In any event, his claim fails 

because substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility 

finding, as the Immigration Judge explicitly stated that it had considered the totality 

of Zapata-Rivero’s circumstances, and it specifically noted five inconsistencies 

between Zapata-Rivero’s testimony and the other evidence in the record.1

 

1 To the extent that Rivero has argued that both the Immigration Judge and 

BIA erred in relying upon statements that he made during an interview at the 

Miami airport, he failed to exhaust that claim before the BIA, so we lack 

jurisdiction to review it.

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 5 of 7
6

An alien seeking protection under CAT must establish that it is more likely 

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

Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Additionally, he must show that the torture would be by or with the acquiescence of 

the government. Id. The regulation establishing the burden of proof states that “[t]he 

testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of 

proof without corroboration.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). That language is identical 

in the regulations establishing the burden for asylum and withholding of removal 

claims. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (asylum claims) and § 208.16(b) 

(withholding of removal claims) with § 208.16(c)(2).

We have not explicitly stated that an adverse credibility determination bars 

CAT relief. However, in Lyashchynska v. U.S. Attorney General, we upheld the 

denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on an Immigration 

Judge’s adverse credibility determination. 676 F.3d 962, 964, 967-69 (11th Cir. 

2012). In directly addressing this issue, the Ninth Circuit has explained that, “when 

a petitioner’s claims under the CAT are based on the same statements that the BIA 

determined to be not credible in the asylum context, the agency may rely upon the 

same credibility determination in denying both the asylum and CAT claims.” Singh 

v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2015) (persuasive) (quotation marks and 

alterations omitted); but see Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155 (2d Cir. 2006) 

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 6 of 7
7

(persuasive) (“[A]n adverse credibility determination made in the asylum context 

should not necessarily affect the BIA's consideration of the alien's CAT claim.”).

In reviewing an alien’s appeal, the BIA must give reasoned consideration to 

the arguments and evidence. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 

1232 (11th Cir. 2013). When reviewing for reasoned consideration, we “inquire 

only whether the [BIA] considered the issues raised and announced its decision in 

terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought 

and not merely reacted.” Id. (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

As an initial matter, Zapata-Rivero has not petitioned for review of the 

Immigration Judge and BIA’s alternative findings that he provided weak evidence 

and failed to prove his eligibility for CAT relief. Thus, he has abandoned any 

challenge to this finding. Regardless of his abandonment, his claim fails, as the BIA 

explicitly addressed his claim and cited authority in rejecting it. Thus, the BIA gave 

reasoned consideration to Zapata-Rivero’s argument.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12116 Date Filed: 03/01/2021 Page: 7 of 7