Court Opinion

ID: 9398156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 15:01:11.251802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.308758
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12998   Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12998
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       SINTIAN ROSIBEL VALLECILLOS-TORRES,
       FRANCIS XIOMARA VALLECILLOS-TORRES,
       KENSY XIOMARA LICONA-VALLECILLOS,
       NEYLI NICOL LICONA-VALLECILLOS,
       YOSEPH MANUEL VALLECILLOS-TORRES,
                                                          Petitioners,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                         Respondent.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12998     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023    Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12998

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A206-435-412
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sintian Vallecillos-Torres (“Sintian”) and her son Yoseph, as
       well as Francis Vallecillos-Torres (“Francis”) and her children
       Kensy and Neyli (collectively the “Petitioners”), natives and citi-
       zens of Honduras, seek review of the decision of the Board of Im-
       migration Appeals (the “BIA”) affirming the denial of their applica-
       tions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
       United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, In-
       human, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CAT”). Pe-
       titioners argue that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination of
       Sintian was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the rec-
       ord compels a finding that they were eligible for asylum, withhold-
       ing of removal, and CAT relief.
              We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent
       the BIA expressly adopts the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) opinion.
       Lopez v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). When
       the BIA agrees with the IJ’s findings but makes additional observa-
       tions, we review both decisions. Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d
       1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009).
USCA11 Case: 22-12998      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 3 of 8

       22-12998               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Factual determinations, which include credibility determi-
       nations, are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006) (per cu-
       riam). Under this highly deferential standard, we will affirm the
       BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and pro-
       bative evidence on the record considered as a whole. I.N.S. v. Elias-
       Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 (1992). Under the
       substantial evidence test, we “review the record evidence in the
       light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasona-
       ble inferences in favor of that decision.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255
       (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, a finding of fact will be
       reversed only when the record “compels” it, not merely because
       the record may support a contrary conclusion. Id. (quotation
       marks omitted).
              An applicant for asylum must meet the Immigration and Na-
       tionality Act’s (the “INA”) definition of a refugee. INA § 208(b)(1),
       8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as follows.
             [A]ny person who is outside any country of such per-
             son’s nationality . . . and who is unable or unwilling to
             return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself
             or herself of the protection of, that country because
             of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
             on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
             in a particular social group, or political opinion.
       INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To meet the deﬁni-
       tion of a refugee, the applicant must, “with speciﬁc and credible
USCA11 Case: 22-12998      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12998

       evidence, demonstrate (1) past persecution on account of a statu-
       torily listed factor, or (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily
       listed factor will cause future persecution.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1257
       (quotation omitted). Where an applicant demonstrates past perse-
       cution, a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of
       future prosecution applies. Id. If the petitioner cannot show past
       persecution, he must demonstrate “a well-founded fear of future
       persecution that is both subjectively genuine and objectively rea-
       sonable.” Id.
               Like the showing required for asylum, an applicant seeking
       the withholding of removal under the INA must demonstrate that
       his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because
       of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
       social group, or political opinion.” INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C.
       § 1231(b)(3)(A). Withholding of removal claims are governed by a
       “more stringent” standard than asylum claims, however, requiring
       the applicant to demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” that
       he will be persecuted upon return to his home country. Sepulveda
       v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
              An applicant seeking CAT relief must establish “that it is
       more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed
       to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
             The CAT deﬁnes torture as follows.
              [A]ny act by which severe pain or suﬀering, whether
              physical or mental, is intentionally inﬂicted on a per-
              son for such purposes as obtaining from him or her
USCA11 Case: 22-12998      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       22-12998               Opinion of the Court                          5

              or a third person information or a confession, punish-
              ing him or her for an act he or she or a third person
              has committed or is suspected of having committed,
              or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third per-
              son, or for any reason based on discrimination of any
              kind, when such pain or suﬀering is inﬂicted by or at
              the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
              of a public oﬃcial or other person acting in an oﬃcial
              capacity.

       8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). “Acquiescence” requires that a public oﬃ-
       cial have awareness of the torture before it occurs and “thereafter
       breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent [it].”
       Id. § 208.18(a)(7). Evidence relevant to an applicant’s eligibility for
       CAT relief includes, but is not limited to: (1) incidents of past tor-
       ture inﬂicted upon the applicant; (2) the viability of relocation
       within the country of removal as a means to avoid torture; (3)
       gross, ﬂagrant or mass human rights violations in the country of
       removal; and (4) other relevant country conditions.                 Id.
       § 208.16(c)(3)(i)–(iv). An applicant who is unable to meet the well-
       founded fear standard for asylum is generally precluded from qual-
       ifying for withholding of removal or CAT relief. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Because [the appli-
       cant] has failed to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, he nec-
       essarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or
       protection under CAT.”).
             If credible, an asylum applicant’s testimony alone may be
       suﬃcient for the applicant to establish his eligibility for relief from
USCA11 Case: 22-12998      Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 6 of 8

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12998

       removal. Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255. On the other hand, “an adverse
       credibility determination alone may be suﬃcient to support the de-
       nial of an asylum application,” but only if the alien fails to produce
       evidence independent of his testimony. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. If
       the alien does produce other evidence of persecution, the agency
       must consider it and decide whether it establishes the alien’s eligi-
       bility for relief. Id.
              An adverse credibility determination must be based on “spe-
       ciﬁc, cogent reasons.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255 (quotation marks
       omitted). Once an adverse credibility determination is made, the
       applicant has the burden to show either that the determination was
       not based on speciﬁc, cogent, reasons or that it is not supported by
       substantial evidence. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. An applicant’s tena-
       ble explanation for an inconsistency or implausibility will not nec-
       essarily warrant reversal, particularly where corroborating evi-
       dence is lacking. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th
       Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (concluding that, although applicant’s ex-
       planations were tenable, they would not “compel a reasonable fact
       ﬁnder to reverse the IJ’s credibility determination”).
              An IJ may base a credibility ﬁnding on the totality of the cir-
       cumstances, including: (1) the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness
       of the applicant; (2) the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s ac-
       count; (3) the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral
       statements; (4) the internal consistency of each statement; and (5)
       the consistency of the statements with other record evidence, in-
       cluding State Department reports. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-12998         Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 05/30/2023         Page: 7 of 8

       22-12998                  Opinion of the Court                                7

       § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An adverse credibility determination may be
       based on inaccuracies, inconsistences, and falsehoods, regardless of
       whether they relate to the “heart” of the applicant’s claim. Id.
               Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credi-
       bility determination against Sintian. The IJ and BIA’s reasons for
       the credibility determination are speciﬁc and cogent, as Sintian’s
       testimony “was internally inconsistent, lacked candor, and lacked
       corroboration.” Substantial evidence supports that assertion.
       Sintian testiﬁed that Cardona1 threatened her and her family, but
       could not remember the year, month, or season any of the threats
       occurred. She testiﬁed that Cardona threatened to kidnap Yoseph
       in 2011, but Yoseph was not born until 2013.
              Substantial evidence also supports the ﬁnding that, in light
       of the adverse credibility determination, the Petitioners did not
       meet their burden of proving their eligibility for asylum, withhold-
       ing of removal, or CAT relief. Aside from Sintian’s testimony,
       nothing in the record corroborated the claim that Petitioners were
       threatened. Sintian was the only member of the family allegedly
       directly threatened by Cardona himself, and she never informed

       1 Wilfredo Cardona stabbed Sintian and Francis’s father in the United States
       in 2009 and was deported to Honduras, where Petitioners lived, in 2011.
       While Cardona was not a member of any criminal organizations and had no
       criminal history, Sintian testified that she heard rumors in her village that he
       had killed people. Petitioners claimed that Cardona threatened them and that
       they were afraid he would hurt or kill them if they remained in Honduras.
       Sintian fled to the United States with her son, Yoseph, in 2014; Francis and her
       two daughters followed in 2016.
USCA11 Case: 22-12998      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 8 of 8

       8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12998

       Francis about those threats. While Sintian testiﬁed that Cardona
       passed by their house every day for weeks, no one else saw him.
       Francis’s testimony was deemed credible, but she testiﬁed that she
       never spoke to the man who threatened them. Without Sintian’s
       testimony, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating past
       persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
               Even if Sintian’s testimony had been credible and the threats
       had occurred, the BIA and IJ found that they did not rise to the level
       of “persecution” because persecution is an “extreme concept” that
       requires “more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment
       or intimidation.” The BIA also aﬃrmed the IJ’s ﬁnding that Peti-
       tioners “never reported their past harm to the Honduran authori-
       ties, or otherwise established that the Honduran authorities were
       unable or unwilling to protect them.”
              The BIA’s decision aﬃrming the denial of Petitioners’ asy-
       lum application was supported by reasonable, substantial, and pro-
       bative evidence. Because Petitioners failed to meet the lower show-
       ing required for asylum, they necessarily failed to show that they
       were eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See
       Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n.4. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
       review.
             PETITION DENIED.