[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 4
2 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 applications 

for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of 

Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge that 

Hossain was not credible. We deny Hossain’s petition.

Because the Board affirmed the decision of the immigration 

judge, we review both their decisions. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 

F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Our review of the decision is “limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” under 

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 record 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 4
21-12269 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 totality of the circumstances, including the applicant’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness, the plausibility of 

his account, the consistency between his written and oral statements, the internal consistency of each statement, and the consistency of his statements with other evidence in the record. 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The 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 

inconsistency. 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 (11th 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. But when first interviewed by a border patrol 

USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 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, yet his medical records and 

statements he made during his credible-fear interview and given 

by his parents and two affiants identified Hossain’s injury as a broken hand. In addition, Hossain’s “injury certificate” and “patient 

release letter” were of dubious origin, authenticated by an “advocate and public notary,” and, according to Hossain, were written 

by his doctors in English and translated into Bengali by his pharmacist. In 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