[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 21

- 12269
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
MD TAFSIR HOSSAIN, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A203

- 653

- 601

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 1 of 42 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12269

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Md. Tafsir Hossain , a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his application s for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nation s ConventionAgainst Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishmen t

. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). T he Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge that Hossain was not credible. We deny Hossain’s petition.

Becau se the Board affirmed the decision of the immigration judge, we review both their decisions. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 914F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Our review of the decision is “limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” unde r which “we must affirm if the decision of the Immigration Judge is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the substantial evidence test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the immigration judge and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Silva , 448 F.3d at 1236. We can reverse “only when the re cord compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 2 of 421

- 12269 Opinion of the Court 3 not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

An “ applicant must establish eligibility for asylum by offering credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005) ( internal quotation marks omitted). A credibility determination may be based on the totalit y of the circumstances, including the applicant’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness
, the plausibility of hi s account , the consistency between hi s written and oral statements , the internal consistency of each statement
, and the consistency of hi s stateme nts with other evidence in the record. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). T he credibility determination can be made “without regard to whether [the] inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id. The Board and immigration judge need not credit an explanation, even if it is plausible, for an omission or i nconsistency. See Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 584 F.3d 1041, 1051 (11th Cir. 2009)

. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Hossain was not credible, and the Board identified specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 1228,
1230

– 31 (11 th Cir. 2006). Hossain based his claim of persecution on his participation in the Liberal Democratic Party and incidents involving the opposition ruling party, the Awami League, in his credible

- fear interview, written application
, and his testimony at his removal hearing . B ut when first interviewed by a borde r patrol USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 3 of 44 Opinion of the Court 21

- 12269 agent after attempting to enter the United States illegally, Hossain said he was “being discriminated by my government and other religious group because of his preference in religion.” Hossain also testified that members of the Awami League broke his right forearm while pointing below his elbow
, ye t his medical records and statements he made during his credible

- fear interview and given by his parents and two affiant s identified Hossain’s injury as a broken hand. In addition, Hossain’s “injury certi ficate” and “patient release letter” were of dubious origin , authentic ated by an “advocate and public notary
, ” and, according to Hossain, were written by his doctors in English and translated into Bengali by his pharmacist

. I n the absence of any corroborative evidence, Hossain’ s opinion that “in Bengali language, the terms for arm and hand are sometimes used interchangeably or the term hand is used more broadly to also cover the forearm” does not compel a conclusion that he is credible. See id. at 1233. And Hossain’s failure to establish he is eligible for asylum necessarily defeats his argument that he is eligible for relief under the Convention. See Forgue , 401 F.3d
at 1288 n.4.
We DENY Hossain’s petition for review. USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 4 of 4