FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 27, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 29 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -9 50 -2 27 LUZ DE Y ZAMBRANO-GONZALEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, 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 the Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 7, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Luz Dey Zam br an o- Gon zal ez (“ Zam

br an o” ) an d M auric io Ri ve ra-Zam

br an o, n at iv es an d c it iz en s o f Co lo m bi a, pe ti ti on forrev ie w of the Bo ardof I m

mig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) ord er af firmin g the Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s(“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f th ei r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n andNati on al ity Act (“ INA”), as well as r el ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nati on s C on ve nt io n Ag ai ns t To rtu re (“ CAT”), b as edonanadve rs e cre di bi li ty fin di ng an d alac k o f rea so nabl y av ai labl e co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce. On app eal , Zam br an o arg ue s tha t the BIA d idno t m ak e anex pl ic itadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g, an d a lt ern at iv el y , th atth e rec or d d oe s n otsupp ort s uc h afin di ng . Zam br an o a ls o arg ue s tha t the BIA d idno t m ak e a fi nd in g re ga rd in g p as t p ers ecu ti on , and th eref or e h er ca se sh ou ldbe rem an de d. 1 W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t, unl es s the BIA h as ex pr es sl y ad op te d the IJ’s d eci si on . Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Here, b ecau se th e BIA i ss ue d i ts ownop in io n uph ol di ng th e IJ ’s de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . Ku evi ak oe v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 56 7 F.3 d 1 30 1, 1 30 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s fac tu al de te rm in at io ns un de r th e subs tant ia l ev id en ce te st . For gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). W e m us t

“ affi rm th e BIA’s d eci si on if i t i s s up po rte d b y reas on ab le , subs tant ia l, an d pr ob at iv e ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas awho le .” Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t ,

As Z ambra

no does not raise any

challeng e in her

brief to the de nial of CAT re lief, that 1 claim is abandone d. Sepulve da v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 225 7 F .3d12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Und er

th is tes 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 de ci si on an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof tha t d eci si on .” Ade fe mi v. Ash cr of t , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). To qua li fy

forasylum , an app li can t m us t s ho w, with sp eci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce, ei th er p as t p ers ecu ti on or a“ well -fo un de d fe ar” o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on on a p ro te ct edgro un d. For

gu e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 86 –8 7 (1 1t h Ci r.20 05 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) . Cred ib le tes ti m on y “ m ay be su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in th e ap pl ic an t’s b ur de n wi th ou t co rro bo rat io n.” INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ). Co nv ers el y , an a dv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n a lo ne m ay supp ort a d en ia l o f anasylu m cla im , bu t i f th e ap pl ic an t p ro du ces ev id en ce o th er th anhe r te st im on y , th e IJan d the BIA m us t co ns id er thi s ev id en ce as well . For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Inev al ua ti ng cred ib il ity , th e IJan d B IA 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, orres po ns iv en es s o f th e ap pl ic an t o r witne ss , th e in he ren t p laus ib il ity

of the ap pl ic an t's or wi tn es s's acco un t, the co ns is te nc y

be twee n the ap pl ic an t's or wi tn es s's writ te n andora l 3st at em en ts (whe ne ve r m ad e an d wh ethe r or no t und er o ath, an d co ns id eri ng th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi chth e st at em en ts were m ad e), the in te rn al co ns is te nc y of e ach su chst at em en t, the co ns is te nc y

of s uc h s ta te m en ts with o th er ev id en ce o f rec or d (in cl ud in g the rep orts of the Depa rtment o f St at e o n c ount ry co nd it io ns ), an d any ina ccu raci es or f al se ho od s i n s uc h s ta te m en ts , witho utreg ardto whet he r anin co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se ho od go es to th e h eartof the ap pl ic an t's cla im , or any oth er re le va ntfact or . INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i). Whenm ak in g an a dv ers e cred ib il ity

fin di ng , th e IJan d B IA m us t b e expl ic itan d o ffer

“ sp eci fic , cog en t reas on s” forth e fi nd in g. For gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Here, co ntrary to Zam

br an o’s co nt en ti on , th e BIA m ad e anex pl ic itadve rs e cred ib il ity

fin di ng . Thatde te rm in at io n was ba se d o n s ev eral in co ns is te nc ie s be twee n Zam

br an o’s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n, h er t es ti m on y , andth e d oc um en tary ev id en ce s he subm it te d. Sp eci fic al ly, th e BIA p oi nt edto di sc rep an ci es reg ard in g th e d et ai ls of an i nc id en t i n wh ic h h er fat he r was sh ot , anddi sc rep an ci es reg ard in g he r in te ract io ns with s m

ug gl ers inCo lo m

bi a. Inrel y in g upo n the se in co ns is te nc ie s, wh ic h are s up po rte d b y th e rec or d, the BIA p ro vi de d “ sp eci fic , co ge ntreas on s” forit s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n. Se e Ch en v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). As Zam br an o d idno t s ub m itan y ot he r co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e b es id es th e d oc um en ts th atcrea te d i nc on si st en ci es

4with h er t es ti m on y , th e BIA’s adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n was su ffi ci en t t o

supp ort the de ni al of Zam br an o’s as y lu m

cla im . Se e For

gu e , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Bec au se Zam

br an o fa il edto m eetth e b ur de n o n h er as y lu m cla im , her

cla im fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al ne ces saril y fai le d. Se e Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 3. Hav in g d is po se d o f Zam

br an o’s as y lu m

cla im as s uc h, the IJ was no t o bl ig at edto m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s re ga rd in g p as t p ers ecu ti on with re sp ectto Zam br an o’s cl ai m forwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Amaya -Art un du aga v . U.S. Att 'y Gen ., 46 3 F .3d 12 47 , 12 49 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Acco rd in gl y , we den y

Zam br an o’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

5