FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 27 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -0 80 -1 75 AMPARO ABR EU DE GERODETTI, FABIANA GERODETTI ABREU, FRANCO CARLO GERODETTI BONA, ADRIAN GERODETT I ABREU, Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, 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 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Am

pa ro Abre u De Ger od et ti see ks rev ie w of t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’s (“ BIA”) fin al ord er af firm in g t he Im

m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) ad ve rs e cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n a ndco rres po nd in g d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m
un de r th e Imm ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”). De Gero de tt i, a n at iv e an d

1 ci ti zen of Ve ne zu el a, cl ai m edpa stpe rs ecu ti on an d awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on by m em

be rs of t he “ Bo li va ria n C irc le s” be cau se of h er p art ic ip at io n i n two si gn atur e driv es lea di ng up to a refe ren du m to reca ll Vene zu el anPres id en t Hug o C ha ve z’s el ect io n. De Gero de tt i’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n was de ni edba se d o n fin di ng s tha t s he was n otcred ib le an d d idno t p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o
co rro bo rat e h er t es ti m on y . After r ev ie w, we di sm is s i n p artan d d en y inpart t he pe ti ti on forrev ie w. On ap pe al , De Gero de tt i ch al le ng es th e IJ ’s adv ers e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n. An as y lu m ap pl ic an t m

us t s ho w, with sp eci fic an d c red ib le 2
The I J also denied D e Ge rodetti’s re quest for w ithholding of re moval and re lief under the 1 United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”) . De Ge rodetti did not appea l these ruling s to the BIA. Thus, we la ck jurisdiction to review her c laims of withholding of r emoval and CAT relief . See Amaya-Artunduag a v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F .3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review c laims not ex hausted be fore the B IA). Fur ther, De Ger odetti did not offer a rgument as to these c laims in thi s Court, thus abandoning them. See Sepulveda

v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (statingthat when a party fails to offe r argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned). A ccor dingly , we dismiss De Ge rodetti’s withholding of remova l and CAT claims. The B IA af

firmed the IJ ’s adve rse c redibility deter mination and elabor ated upon some of 2 the I J ’s re asoning . Thus, we r eview theI J ’s adve rse c redibility findingas supplemented by the BIA. See Savour

y v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 449 F .3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2006). Our r eview of

2ev 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. Fo rg ue v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d12 82 , 12 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 05 ); 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) . Whi le cred ib le tes ti m on y “ m ay be su ffi ci en t t o
su st ai n t he ap pl ic an t’s b ur de n wi th ou t co rro bo rat io n,” Im m ig rat io n a nd Nati on al it y

Act (“ INA”) § 20 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii ), th e weak er an ap pl ic an t’s t es ti m on y , th e g reat er the ne edforco rro bo rat io n. Yan g v . U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 4 18 F.3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Co nv ers el y , an a dv ers e cred ib il it y

de te rm 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 tha n h er t es ti m on y , th e IJan d t he BIA m us t
co ns id er thi s ev id en ce as well . See Fo rg ue , 40 1 F .3dat 1 28 7. Inm ak in g a n a dv ers e cre di bi li ty find in g, the IJ m us t b e ex pl ic itan d o ffer

“ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s” forth e fi nd in g. Id . Purs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i), a s amend edby the REAL ID Act, th e IJ , inev al ua ti ng cred ib il it y , 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 en es s of th e ap p l i c a n t or witne ss , th e in he ren t pl au si bi li ty 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 witne ss ’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 o r n ot un de r oa th , an d

cre dibility

deter minations is “highly

defe rential,” and “w e may not substitute our judgment for that of the B oard.”Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F .3d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks a

nd brac kets omitted). Credibility deter minations are r eviewe d under the substantial evidence test, and wewill not overturn them unless the re cord c ompels it. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2005). 3co 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 is te nc y 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 ot he r ev id en ce of reco rd (in cl ud in g th e rep orts of th e Dep art m en t o f 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 su ch st at em en ts , wit h o ut reg ard to whe th er an in co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se ho od go es to th e he a rt o f th e ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m , or a ny oth er rel ev an t fa ct or . INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i); see als o C he n v . U.S. Att’y Gen ., 46 3 F .3d12 28 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). 3 Add it io na ll y , “ [w]here t he tri er o f fac t d et erm in es th atth e ap pl ic an t s ho ul d pr ov id e ev id en ce tha t co rro bo rat es ot he rwis e cre di bl e te st im on y , su chev id en ce
m us t b e p ro vi de d u nl es s t he ap pl ic an t d oe s n otha ve th e ev id en ce an d c an no t
reas on ab ly obt ai n t he ev id en ce.” INA § 20 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii ). “ Onc e anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g i s m ad e, th e b ur de n i s o n th e ap pl ic an t al ie n t o s ho w th atth e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de ci si onwas n otsupp orte d b y ‘spe ci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as edon subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Fo rg ue , 40 1 F.3 d a t 1 28 7. De Gero de tt i d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e IJga ve sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r fin di ng he r no t cr ed ib le . De Gerod et ti als o d oe s n otdi sp ut e th e ex is te nc e o f an in co ns is te nc y

be twee n h er h eari ng tes ti m on y an d o th er ev id en ce i n t he reco rdas t o

Be cause De Ge rodetti filed her asylum application afte r May 11, 2005, the REAL

I D 3 Act’s a mendments apply

to her c ase. See REALI D Act of 2005, Pub. L . No. 109-13, § 101(h)( 2), 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005). 4th e d at e sh e was att ack edby the Bo li va ria n C irc le s. Sh e m erel y arg ue s tha t thi s in co ns is te nc y

sh ou ldno t h av e b een us edto di sc red ithe r te st im on y be cau se “ itis po ss ib le [th e in co ns is te nc y ] was si m pl y a laps e o f m em ory ,” an d “ [i]t s im pl y ap pe ars th atdurin g t es ti m on y Pet it io ne r go t the y ear 2 00 3 a nd20 04 co nf us ed .” W e co nc lu de th atth e ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g was supp orte d b y subs tant ia l
ev id en ce an d t ha t the IJ a ndth e BIA p ro pe rly reli edup on th e d at e in co ns is te nc y in
ev al ua ti ng De Gero de tt i’s cr ed ib il it y . At h er m eri ts he ari ng , De Gero de tt i re pe at ed ly test ifi edth atsh e was at ta ck edon Nov em

be r 28 , 20 04 , whi le pa rti ci pa ti ng inth e se co ndsi gn atur e
co ll ect io n driv e le ad in g up t o t he reca ll refe ren du m . This tes ti m on y was in co ns is te ntwith: (1) th e U.S. Depa rtment o f St at e Co un try Repo rts on Hum an Ri gh ts Prac ti ces forVene zu el a fo r th e y ears 20 04 , 20 05 an d 2 00 8 andth e 2 00 9 U.S. Depa rtment o f St at e Bac kg ro un d No te forVene zu el a, whi chin di cat edth at th e se co ndsi gn atur e driv e o ccu rredsev eral m on th s af te r Nov em

be r 20 03 (whe n th e fi rs t s ig na tu re driv e en de d) an d Au gu st20 04 (whe n t he reca ll refe ren du m to ok pl ace) ; an d (2 ) De Gero de tt i’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n andasylu m

in te rv ie w, inwhi ch sh e st at edth atth e at ta ck

du rin g the sec on d s ig na tu re driv e o ccu rredinNov em be r 20 03
.

5Whe n t he IJ p oi nt edou t the di sc rep an cy to De Gero de tt i an d g av e h er an op po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n i t, De Gero de tt i i ns is te d tha t the ev en ts oc cu rredin Nov em be r 20 04 an d o ffer edno furth er ex pl an at io n. Mo reo ve r, in he r ap pe al to th e BIA, De Gero de tt i co nt in ue d t o i ns is t the ev en ts oc cu rredinNov em be r 20 04
. Thu s, Gero de tt i n ev er o ffer edhe r m em ory lap se ex pl an at io n t o t he IJ o r th e BIA. 4 Inan y ev en t, a t en ab le expl an at io n fo r anin co ns is te nc y ge ne ral ly doe s n otco m

pe l
rev ers al of the IJ’s cr ed ib il ity fin di ng , esp eci al ly whe re, as he re, the IJ a ls o fo un d a la ckof c orro bo rat in g e vi de nc e. See, e.g ., Che n, 4 63 F.3dat 1 23 3. Fu rth erm or e, to th e ex te ntDe Gero de tt i ch arac te riz es th e in co ns is te nc y reg ard in g t he da te sh e
was att ack edas m in or , aft er the REAL ID Act, anadve rs e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io n m ay

be ba se d o n i nc on si st en ci es th atdo no t g o “ to th e h eartof t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m .” See INA § 20 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (ii i). Inad di ti on , th e IJan d t he BIA h ig hl ig ht edth e fac t tha t De Ger od et ti fai le d to subm itsu ffi ci en t co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e. Thi s fi nd in g i s al so supp orte d b y
subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. The let te rs De Gero de tt i s ub m it te d fr om fri en ds an d fa m il y in Vene zu el a: (1) were u nd at ed ; (2 ) wit h o ne ex cep ti on , were n otno ta riz edor
Notably , De Ge rodetti’s new ly -off ere d explanation that she merely confuse d 2003 and 4 2004 does not explain the inconsistency with the State Depa

rtment documents. Ac ceptingDe Ger odetti’s explanation, she meant to testify that she wa s participating in the second signature drive a nd attacke d on November 28, 2003. Howeve r, the State Department doc uments indicate that the sec ond signature drive did not beg in until s ometime in the beg inning of 2004. 6ot he rwis e swo rn ; (3 ) la ck edde ta il as t o t he au th or s; an d (4 ) di d n otpro vi de an y

sp eci fic in fo rm at io n abo utth e al le ge d i nc id en ts of h arm De Gero de tt i cl ai m edto ha ve su ffer ed
. The va stm ajor it y

of t he art ic le s an d i nt ern etpo st in gs De Gero de tt i
subm it te d h av e n o re le va nc e to De Gero de tt i’s cl ai m s as th ei r co nt en t ra ng es fro m drug tra ffi ck in g andterro ris m to free do m

of e xp res si onan d t he pre ss in Ven ezu el a. Fiv e d oc um en ts ge ne ral ly con cern po li ti cal di sc riminat io n a nd Ch av ez’s u se of f

ear t o m ai nt ai n h is po wer, in cl ud in g u si ng th e Bo li varia n C irc le s, who cla im

to be ap ol it ic al , bu t re po rte dl y were arm edby Presi de ntCh av ez an d in jure d d em on st rat or s atanApri l 1 1, 2 00 2 p ro te st . Howev er, n on e o f th es e fi ve do cu m en ts co rro bo rat es De Gero de tt i’s cl ai m s tha t the Bo li va rian C irc le s t arg et ed pe op le who pa rti ci pa te d i n t he two si gn atur e driv es lea di ng up to th e Aug us t 2 00 4
reca ll refe ren du m . Fi na ll y , De Gero de tt i d idno t s ub m itan y do cu m en ts co rro bo rat in g h er
m em be rs hi p i n e it he r th e COPEI p arty or S um at e o r th e n atur e o f he r pa rti ci pa ti on with t he se org an iz at io ns . Alth ou gh De Gero de tt i ex pl ai ne d t ha t s he was unabl e to ge t d oc um en ts ve rif

y in g h er COPEI m em

be rs hi p b ecau se th e n ew le ad ers hi p o f COPEI d idno t kno w De Gero de tt i an d was afra idto sen d v eri fic at io n, b ot h t he IJ
an d t he BIA fo un d t hi s ex pl an at io n u np ers ua si ve . 7De Gero de tt i p oi nt s t o t he 20 04 Co un try Repo rt, wh ic h i nd ic at es th at

Pres id en t Ch av ez an d o ffi ci al s i n h is adm in is tra ti on att ack edth e in de pe nd en t
m ed ia , th e p ol it ic al op po si ti on , lab orun io ns , th e co urts , th e ch ur chan d h um an rig ht s g ro up s. Go ve rn m en t s up po rte rs to okth es e at ta ck s as “ ta ci t ap pr ov al of vi ol en ce” a ndth reat en edan d p hysic al ly harm ed“ atlea stdo zen s o f in di vi du al s op po se d t o C ha ve z.” Alt ho ug h t he 20 04 Co un try Repo rt d is cu ss es th e si gn atur e dr iv es an d re cal l re fere ndum , itdo es no t l in k a ny thr eat s o r at ta ck s b y go ve rn m en t
supp orte rs to th es e ev en ts . The 2 00 4 C ou nt ry Rep ort d oe s n otco m

pe l a
co nc lu si on th atDe Gero de tt i’s t es ti m on y was c red ib le
. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atth e fi nd in gs as t o De Ger od et ti ’s cred ib il it y an d th e la ckof c orro bo rat io n are s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, we d o n otad dr es s De Gero de tt i’s ar gu m en t tha t h er t es ti m on y est ab li sh edpa stpe rs ecu ti on or awell
fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Furthe rm or e, De Gero do tt i d oe s n otarg ue th at ot he r ev id en ce i n the reco rd , abs en t h er d is cred it edtes ti m on y , com pe ls a
co nc lu si on th atsh e was pe rs ecu te d o r ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on . 5
De Ge rodetti’s husband, F ranc o Carlo B ona DeGer odetti, and her minor son, Adrian 5 Abre u De Ge rodetti wer e included on D e Ge rodetti’s asy lum application as derivative benef iciarie s. Although our

opinion refe rs only

to De Ge rodetti, our holdingas to the asylum claim applies e qually

to her husband a

nd minor son. De Ge rodetti’s adult daughter, F abiana Abre u De Ge rodetti, was ove r 21 year s old when De Ger odetti filed her a sylum application and thus was not entitled to derivative be nefits under the asylum statute. See I NA § 208(b) (3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). A lthough F abiana filed a separa

te asylum application, she did not appea l its denial to the B IA, and De Ger odetti’s BIA brief mentioned her

daughter only

in passing. 8PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, DENIED I N PART.

Be cause Fa

bianna did not exhaust her administrative r emedies, w e lac k jurisdiction to review he r separ ate a sylum claim and dismiss her appea l. See I NA § 242(d) (1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)( 1). 9