Court Opinion

ID: 9415023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 18:01:09.448755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.958100
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10968    Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023    Page: 1 of 22

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10968
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        YAN QING FENG,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                               Respondent.

                           ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A216-265-100
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 2 of 22

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10968

        Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Yang Qin Feng, a native and citizen of China, proceeding pro
        se, appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming
        an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, with-
        holding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Tor-
        ture (“CAT”). Mr. Feng contends primarily on appeal that the BIA
        and the immigration judge erred when they denied his application
        due to an adverse credibility finding related to inconsistencies be-
        tween his hearing testimony, his credible fear interview, and his
        application.
               After review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we con-
        clude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility
        finding because there were inconsistencies in the record as to
        whether Mr. Feng broke a window of a construction equipment
        when he was protesting the taking of his land by the Chinese gov-
        ernment and whether he was beaten by the police and fellow in-
        mates when he was detained after the protest. We therefore deny
        the petition.
                                          I
                                         A
               Mr. Feng is a native and citizen of China. On October 13,
        2017, he crossed the Mexican border smuggled in the trunk of a car
        and applied for admission to the United States at the San Isidro port
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 3 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                         3

        of entry. He was referred by the authorities to an asylum officer
        for a credible fear interview because he expressed fear of persecu-
        tion in China.
                During his telephonic credible fear interview, Mr. Feng tes-
        tified under oath and with the benefit of an interpreter fluent in his
        native Mandarin language. He explained that he came to the
        United States because he was harmed by the Chinese government.
        He claimed that the Aojian County Government acquired his land
        by force and without his permission, so he and other villagers gath-
        ered “at the gate of the government, to protest, to ask for justice.”
        Mr. Feng stated that he was protesting the government’s corrup-
        tion and the fact that he was offered low compensation for his land.
               Minutes after the protest began, the police came and started
        capturing the protesters because it was illegal to protest. Mr. Feng
        explained to the asylum officer that he was taken by the police and
        locked up for seven days in a small room. According to Mr. Feng,
        he was arrested and detained because he tried to stop the construc-
        tion from starting and “broke the window of the machinery at the
        site.” After his seven-day detention, Mr. Feng paid a fine for the
        damage to the construction equipment and was released.
                During the interview, the asylum officer asked Mr. Feng if
        he was ever threatened or harmed by anyone else in China aside
        from his seven-day arrest. Mr. Feng responded, “[t]he police just
        came to my place looking for me from time to time, make me feel
        like I am under the threat.” The asylum officer then asked Mr.
        Feng whether, aside from those two incidents, he was ever
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023      Page: 4 of 22

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10968

        threatened or harmed by anyone else, and he said “no.” At the end
        of the interview, the asylum officer summarized Mr. Feng’s state-
        ments back to him:
               You testified that you were captured by the police for
               trying to get them to stop taking over your land and
               damaging the machinery they were [using] and then
               you had to spend 7 days in jail and pay a fine . . . You
               fear going back to China because you fear the police
               will capture you for your participation in the protest.
        R. at 258.
               Mr. Feng agreed that the summary was accurate, but added
        that after he was released, the police demanded that he promise
        that he would not make similar mistakes again. Mr. Feng indicated
        that he understood the asylum officer’s questions, and the inter-
        preter stated that there were no problems understanding Mr. Feng.
        The asylum officer determined that Mr. Feng was credible and had
        established a credible fear of persecution based on his political opin-
        ion.
                                          B
               On December 22, 2017, the Department of Homeland Secu-
        rity served Mr. Feng with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging
        him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as a
        non-citizen who at the time of entry was not in possession of valid
        entry documents. Mr. Feng, through counsel, admitted the allega-
        tions in the NTA and conceded removability.
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 5 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                         5

               Mr. Feng then filed an application for asylum, withholding
        of removal, and CAT protection. He indicated in his application
        that his claims were based on a political opinion related to a land
        dispute and claimed he was mistreated by the Chinese police. On
        April 9, 2018, an immigration judge scheduled a merits hearing on
        Mr. Feng’s application for June 8, 2018 and set the deadline to sub-
        mit any supporting documents for May 30, 2018.
                                          C
                At a hearing held over two days before the immigration
        judge, Mr. Feng, who was represented by counsel and provided an
        interpreter, testified in support of his application. Mr. Feng reiter-
        ated his testimony that in 2017 the Chinese government “falsely
        took” his land, which his family had owned for a few decades, for
        a “government project . . . to expand . . . the river canals and also
        [to] try to clean up the pollution.” He described that when he and
        other villagers protested the Chinese government’s actions, the po-
        lice came and arrested him. According to Mr. Feng, he was charged
        with interfering with a government function and disturbing the so-
        cial order. After seven days of detention, he was fined and released,
        but was not allowed to keep his land.
                Mr. Feng testified that after his release, he went with the
        other villagers to continue protesting. The government tried to
        arrest the protestors again, but Mr. Feng was able to escape. While
        Mr. Feng was in hiding, police officers told his wife that he “was
        doing illegal protesting” and that once he returned, he should “turn
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 6 of 22

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-10968

        himself in.” After hiding for several months, Mr. Feng decided in
        August of 2017 to leave China.
               Mr. Feng explained that after arriving in the United States in
        October of 2017, his wife told him that the Chinese government
        had “sent a notice to [his] house” in April of 2018. His wife did not
        tell him what the notice said. However, in August of 2018, his wife
        told him that police officers came to his house seeking to arrest
        him. The police officers told Mr. Feng’s wife to ask him to “turn
        himself in immediately” and that he would be “sentenced to
        prison.” Mr. Feng testified that if he were sentenced to prison in
        China, he would be “abused and beaten by the police inside the
        prison cell.”
               On cross-examination, Mr. Feng was questioned about the
        details of his protest activity and consequent arrest for interfering
        with a Chinese government action. Mr. Feng stated that on the
        day he was arrested, he attempted to stop the government from
        starting construction. When asked whether he broke a window on
        a piece of machinery, he replied, “No. I did not do that.” The gov-
        ernment pointed out that Mr. Feng testified to breaking the win-
        dow in his credible fear interview, but Mr. Feng could not remem-
        ber what he had previously testified. The government submitted
        Mr. Feng’s credible fear interview for impeachment purposes, and
        Mr. Feng’s counsel did not object.
              The government then cross-examined Mr. Feng about his
        seven-day detention. For the first time, Mr. Feng stated that he
        “was abused by the people in that jail.” The government again
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023      Page: 7 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                          7

        referenced Mr. Feng’s credible fear interview and noted that his
        testimony was inconsistent because he had never mentioned any
        physical abuse during his detention. Mr. Feng attempted to recon-
        cile the inconsistency by stating, “[a]t that time, the [credible fear]
        interview was conducted telephonically. So some questions were
        not that clear to me and I couldn’t know about the questions.
        Maybe, that’s it.”
               When the immigration judge questioned Mr. Feng about
        the abuse he suffered while he was in jail, he testified that he was
        “abused and beaten by the inmates inside the jail when [he] was
        incarcerated.” Mr. Feng also testified that he was beaten by the
        police during an interrogation. According to Mr. Feng, the police
        “used a baton to beat [his] legs and [his] arms” and they “slapped
        [him] on [his] face.” He claimed he “was beaten with the police
        baton for more than ten times during the interrogation.” Mr. Feng
        further testified that once they released him, he went to a small
        hospital for treatment, where a doctor treated his wounds and gave
        him a sports medicine cream. Mr. Feng claimed he omitted the
        physical abuse he endured from his asylum application because he
        was in detention at the time and did not think it would affect his
        application.
                On redirect, Mr. Feng explained that he was beaten by other
        inmates because he “did not follow their rules” when they asked
        him to “wash the bathroom and to do some cleaning.” Mr. Feng
        testified that the abuse stopped once he “called out to officers” for
        help. Mr. Feng also testified that a police officer told the inmates
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 8 of 22

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10968

        to “fix [him] up, to beat [him].” Mr. Feng explained that the initial
        interrogation when he was first detained lasted around twenty
        minutes, during which some officers “started beating [him].”
               After Mr. Feng’s testimony, the government moved for an
        adverse credibility finding because Mr. Feng’s testimony was inter-
        nally inconsistent with different portions of his testimony, his cred-
        ible fear interview, and his application. The government also ar-
        gued that Mr. Feng’s application should be denied and he should
        be removed. According to the government, Mr. Feng had not es-
        tablished a nexus to a protected ground and his claimed harm was
        either perpetrated by a non-government actor or did not constitute
        persecution.
                Mr. Feng’s counsel, however, argued that Mr. Feng was ar-
        rested because of his political opinion. Counsel asserted that if Mr.
        Feng went back to China, he would be arrested and detained. Ac-
        cording to counsel, the Chinese police are not after Mr. Feng for
        his first protest, but for the second protest where he challenged the
        unfair compensation from the government.
                                         D
                The immigration judge denied Mr. Feng’s claims for asylum,
        withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The immigration judge
        first excluded the untimely documentary evidence provided by Mr.
USCA11 Case: 22-10968          Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 08/02/2023          Page: 9 of 22

        22-10968                   Opinion of the Court                                  9

        Feng because it was submitted after the deadline had passed and no
        motion explaining the late submission had been filed. 1
               The immigration judge then entered an adverse credibility
        finding because Mr. Feng’s testimony “differ[ed] wildly from his
        statements to the asylum officer during his credible fear interview
        and [wa]s inconsistent with his [asylum application].” The immi-
        gration judge found that Mr. Feng’s hearing testimony and his
        credible fear interview testimony regarding “who broke the win-
        dow on the construction equipment” were “absolutely opposite of
        one another,” because Mr. Feng stated during his credible fear in-
        terview that he broke the window but denied doing so at the hear-
        ing.
               The immigration judge further found that Mr. Feng’s hear-
        ing testimony—where he stated he was harmed by police and/or
        other detainees—was inconsistent with his credible fear interview
        testimony where he was asked three times if he had been physically
        harmed but never said he was beaten by police officers or fellow

        1 Mr. Feng’s documentary evidence consisted of (1) his personal statement, (2)
        his identification card, (3) his household registry, (4) his marriage certificate,
        (5) the birth certificates of his two children, (6) a fine receipt for violating
        China’s family planning policy, (7) a fine receipt for disturbing the social order,
        (8) two notices from his village’s committee, (9) photos of the government
        confiscating his land, (10) a New York Times article detailing the dispute be-
        tween farmers and local officials, (11) another New York Times article reporting
        that one of the farmers was sentenced to three years imprisonment for dis-
        turbing the social order, (12) a written statement from his wife, and (13) the
        State Department’s 2017 Human Rights Report on China.
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 10 of 22

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10968

        inmates. The immigration judge “considered and expressly re-
        ject[ed]” Mr. Feng’s explanation that “he did not understand, that
        he was confused, that it was on the telephone, and that he did not
        understand the interpreter.” The immigration judge explained that
        Mr. Feng confirmed he was able to hear and understand the inter-
        preter and that he confirmed to the asylum officer that the sum-
        mary of his credible fear interview was accurate. The immigration
        judge also noted that Mr. Feng omitted from his written asylum
        application any claim that he was harmed by fellow detainees.
        Therefore, the immigration judge determined that an adverse cred-
        ibility finding was sufficient to deny Mr. Feng’s application.
                Notwithstanding his adverse credibility finding, the immi-
        gration judge made three alternative findings on the merits in case
        the BIA or this court disagreed with his credibility finding. Specifi-
        cally, the immigration judge alternatively found that Mr. Feng (1)
        did not establish past persecution, (2) failed to show a well-founded
        fear of future persecution, and (3) failed to establish a nexus to a
        political opinion. The immigration judge additionally found that
        Mr. Feng did not meet the higher burden of proof for withholding
        of removal because he had not met the lower burden for asylum,
        and that he did not establish a likelihood of torture by or with the
        acquiescence of the Chinese government for CAT relief.
                                          E
               Following the denial of his application, Mr. Feng appealed
        to the BIA. Mr. Feng argued that the immigration judge erred in
        denying his claims and, in particular, in his findings that he had not
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 11 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                        11

        testified credibly and that his documentary evidence was untimely.
        The BIA, however, expressly adopted and affirmed the immigra-
        tion judge’s denial of Mr. Feng’s claims based on an adverse credi-
        bility finding.
                The BIA explained that because the adverse credibility find-
        ing was dispositive of Mr. Feng’s application, it declined to address
        the denial of relief and protection on the “merits.” The BIA noted
        that during the hearing before the immigration judge, Mr. Feng
        “denied having broken a window of some construction equipment
        during the protest . . . but, during his credible fear interview, he
        indicated that he did break a window during the protest.” The BIA
        further noted that Mr. Feng “during his credible fear interview did
        not report any physical harm or abuse at the hands of the authori-
        ties during his 7-day detention nor did he testify on direct examina-
        tion that he was physically harmed during detention.” But the BIA
        noted that on cross-examination, he stated he was abused while in
        jail and that he was beaten by his fellow detainees.
               The BIA determined that Mr. Feng “did not persuasively re-
        solve or explain the credibility issues raised by the [immigration
        judge], despite having been given an opportunity to do so.” The
        BIA disagreed with Mr. Feng’s assertion that the inconsistencies in
        his testimony were “minor,” concluding that they were “matters
        that go to the heart of [his] claim with regard to the nature, circum-
        stances, and severity of the harm that he allegedly suffered.”
              Additionally, the BIA concluded that the immigration judge
        did not err in excluding Mr. Feng’s untimely documents from the
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 12 of 22

        12                     Opinion of the Court                  22-10968

        record. The BIA found Mr. Feng’s explanation—that the docu-
        ments were filed late because they were not received until after
        their due date—unpersuasive because he did not explain why the
        documents could not have been obtained earlier or how those doc-
        uments would have resolved the credibility concerns.
              Finally, the BIA concluded that the credibility determination
        was fatal to Mr. Feng’s claims for withholding of removal and his
        request for CAT protection. The BIA thus dismissed Mr. Feng’s
        appeal.
               Mr. Feng now petitions this court for review.
                                          II
                “When the BIA issues a decision, we review the BIA’s deci-
        sion, except to the extent that the BIA has expressly adopted the
        [immigration judge]’s decision.” Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y. Gen.,
        676 F.3d 962, 966–67 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479
        F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007)). “In that instance, we review the
        [immigration judge]’s decision as well.” Id. at 967 (citation omit-
        ted). If the BIA’s decision is supported by reasonable, substantial,
        and probative evidence when the record is considered as a whole,
        we must affirm. See id. “To conclude the BIA’s decision should be
        reversed, ‘we must find that the record not only supports the con-
        clusion, but compels it.’” Id. (quoting Ruiz, 479 F.3d at 765). “Fac-
        tual determinations, including credibility determinations, are re-
        viewed under a substantial evidence standard, which provides that
        the decision can be reversed only if evidence compels a reasonable
        fact finder to find otherwise.” Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270,
USCA11 Case: 22-10968         Document: 28-1          Date Filed: 08/02/2023          Page: 13 of 22

        22-10968                    Opinion of the Court                                 13

        1276 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Sepulveda
        v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005)).
               Mr. Feng is proceeding without counsel. So we liberally
        construe his pro se ﬁlings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
        1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
                                                III
                Mr. Feng raises several arguments on appeal. See Peti-
        tioner’s Br. at 18–58. First, he challenges the immigration judge’s
        exclusion of his documentary evidence, arguing that the docu-
        ments were filed just a few days late. See id. at 18-21. Second, he
        argues that the immigration judge and the BIA erred in discrediting
        his testimony due to apparent inconsistencies because he was con-
        sistent, detailed, and credible about the harm he suffered and could
        suffer in China. See id. at 21–38. Third, he contends that the immi-
        gration judge and the BIA erred in finding that he had not estab-
        lished past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecu-
        tion. See id. at 38–46. Finally, he challenges the denial of his claim
        for withholding of removal and claim for CAT relief. See id. at 53–
        58. 2
               As an initial matter, we do not consider Mr. Feng’s argu-
        ments challenging the merits of the immigration judge’s alterna-
        tive holdings that he failed to meet his burden of establishing his

        2 Mr. Feng’s initial brief is nearly identical to the brief he filed before the BIA.

        Compare R. at 57–93, with Petitioner’s Br. at 17–58. Mr. Feng did not file a
        reply brief.
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 14 of 22

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10968

        eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We
        generally “review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment unless
        the BIA expressly adopted the [immigration judge]’s decision,” but
        issues not reached by the BIA are not properly before us. Gonzalez
        v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). The BIA here
        expressly declined to “address the denial of relief and protection on
        the merits,” so the immigration judge’s alternative holdings on the
        merits are not properly before us. R. at 5. See also Kumar v. U.S.
        Att’y Gen., No. 22-10171, 2022 WL 17246663, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov.
        28, 2022) (“The BIA expressly declined to reach the IJ’s alternative
        holdings, however. That means we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s
        decisions regarding the adverse credibility ruling, but because the
        BIA did not reach the IJ’s alternative holdings, they are not before
        this Court.”).
              We therefore only address Mr. Feng’s arguments as to the
        two issues considered by the BIA—(1) the exclusion of his docu-
        mentary evidence, and (2) the adverse credibility determination.
        We consider each argument in turn.
                                          A
                Federal regulations provide immigration judges with admin-
        istrative control over the removal hearing. See Tang, 578 F.3d at
        1276 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c)). An immigration judge “may set
        and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related doc-
        uments and responses thereto, if any. If an application or docu-
        ment is not filed within the time set by the [immigration judge],
        the opportunity to file that application or document shall be
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 08/02/2023    Page: 15 of 22

        22-10968              Opinion of the Court                       15

        deemed waived.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We
        therefore review for abuse of discretion an immigration judge’s de-
        cision to exclude corroborating documents that were untimely
        ﬁled. See id. (“We conclude that the [immigration judge]’s decision
        to exclude evidence offered for submission after a court-ordered
        filing deadline is discretionary.”).
                Here, during a hearing on April 9, 2018, the immigration
        judge set the deadline for the cross-service of the supporting docu-
        ments of both parties for May 30, 2018. See R. at 108. Although the
        government timely filed its supporting documents, Mr. Feng did
        not file his documents until June 4, 2018. See id. at 176–177. The
        immigration judge thus excluded Mr. Feng’s documentary evi-
        dence as untimely. See id. at 178. Given our precedent, we con-
        clude that the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion be-
        cause Mr. Feng filed his supporting documents after their due date.
        See Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1306 n.3 (11th Cir.
        2009) (holding that an immigration judge did not abuse its discre-
        tion in refusing to admit evidence after a deadline imposed under
        8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c)).
                Mr. Feng argues that the immigration judge erred in exclud-
        ing his documentary evidence because the documents “were filed
        just a few days late” due to issues receiving the documents from
        China and other administrative delays. See Petitioner’s Br. at 18–
        21. We find that argument unconvincing. There is no indication
        in the record that Mr. Feng, who was represented by counsel at the
        time, filed any motion requesting an extension of the deadline or
USCA11 Case: 22-10968         Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 08/02/2023          Page: 16 of 22

        16                         Opinion of the Court                         22-10968

        describing any difficulties in obtaining the documents. As the im-
        migration judge explained, even when Mr. Feng’s attorneys tried
        to re-file the untimely documentary evidence at the continued
        hearing on October 2, 2018, “[n]o motion to accept untimely doc-
        uments was filed, and no motion to explain why these documents
        were submitted months after the filing deadline was made.” R. at
        109. Under these circumstances, the immigration judge did not
        abuse his discretion in excluding Mr. Feng’s untimely filed docu-
        ments. See Kueviakoe, 567 F.3d at 1306 n.3 (“The [immigration
        judge] did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider any of
        Kueviakoe’s untimely exhibits.”).
                                                B
               “An applicant bears the burden of satisfying the [immigra-
        tion judge] that [his] testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers
        to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a ref-
        ugee.” Lyashchynska, 676 F.3d at 967. 3

        3 An applicant for asylum must meet the Immigration and Naturalization Act’s

        deﬁnition of a refugee. See INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A “refu-
        gee” is “any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality”
        who is unwilling to return to that country “because of persecution or a well-
        founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, member-
        ship in a particular social group, or political opinion.” § 1101(a)(42)(A). To
        meet that deﬁnition, the applicant must, “with speciﬁc and credible evidence,
        demonstrate (1) past persecution on account of a statutorily listed factor, or
        (2) a well-founded fear that the statutorily listed factor will cause future perse-
        cution.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation
        marks omitted and emphasis added).
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 17 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                        17

                An immigration judge may base a credibility finding on the
        totality of the circumstances, including (1) the demeanor, candor,
        or responsiveness of the applicant; (2) the inherent plausibility of
        the applicant’s account; (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 rec-
        ord evidence, including State Department reports. See INA §
        208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Additionally, an ad-
        verse credibility determination may be based on inaccuracies, in-
        consistences, and falsehoods, whether or not they relate to the
        “heart” of the applicant’s claim. Id.
                                          1
               We have previously explained that an immigration judge
        “must offer specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility find-
        ing.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005).
        The immigration judge and the BIA satisfied this requirement be-
        cause they did not simply give general reasons for denying Mr.
        Feng’s application for relief. They both specifically referred to Mr.
        Feng’s internal inconsistencies in diﬀerent portions of his testi-
        mony, his credible fear interview, and his asylum application. In
        particular, there are two main inconsistencies the immigration
        judge and the BIA relied on: (1) Mr. Feng’s inconsistent testimony
        about whether he broke the window of the construction equip-
        ment, and (2) Mr. Feng’s inconsistent testimony about whether he
        had been physically harmed by the police and/or other detainees.
        The immigration judge and the BIA also based their adverse
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 18 of 22

        18                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10968

        credibility determinations on Mr. Feng’s failure to resolve or ex-
        plain the inconsistencies despite being given the opportunity to do
        so.
               In sum, the BIA and the immigration judge provided spe-
        ciﬁc, cogent reasons for their adverse credibility ﬁnding. See Forgue,
        401 F.3d at 1287.
                                          2
                Given that the adverse credibility finding was based on spe-
        cific, cogent reasons, Mr. Feng bears the burden of showing that it
        is not supported by substantial evidence. See Tang, 578 F.3d at 1277
        (“If the court explicitly determines that the alien lacks credibility,
        the court ‘must offer specific, cogent reasons’ for the finding. The
        burden then shifts to the alien to show that the credibility decision
        was not supported by “specific, cogent reasons” or was not based
        on substantial evidence.”) (citing Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287). Mr.
        Feng, however, fails to meet that burden because substantial evi-
        dence supports the adverse credibility finding.
               First, Mr. Feng’s testimony at the hearing was inconsistent
        with his testimony to the asylum officer during his credible fear in-
        terview. For instance, during his credible fear interview, Mr. Feng
        told the asylum officer that he broke the window on the construc-
        tion equipment. See R. at 254. But, during the hearing, he denied
        having broken the window. See id. at 214. Additionally, despite
        having been asked multiple times, Mr. Feng never told the asylum
        officer during his credible fear interview that he was physically
        harmed and beaten by the police and other detainees when he was
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023    Page: 19 of 22

        22-10968               Opinion of the Court                       19

        arrested after the protest. See id. at 254. Mr. Feng, however, testi-
        fied for the first time during the hearing that he was beaten by the
        police and other detainees after he was arrested. See id. at 217.
                Second, Mr. Feng’s testimony at the hearing before the im-
        migration judge, which took place over multiple days, was inter-
        nally inconsistent. For example, during his direct examination, Mr.
        Feng did not mention that he suffered any physical abuse during
        the time he was detained after he was arrested. See id. at 209–213.
        However, when the government cross-examined Mr. Feng about
        his seven-day detention, he testified that he was physically abused
        while in jail. See id. at 217.
               Third, Mr. Feng’s testimony was inconsistent with his asy-
        lum application. Although Mr. Feng testified during the hearing
        that he was harmed by his fellow detainees when he was arrested,
        he omitted that information from his written asylum application.
        See R. at 405–406. Indeed, Mr. Feng wrote on his asylum applica-
        tion that he was “detained, interrogated, and beaten by the Chinese
        police.” Id. at 405. Mr. Feng, however, never wrote that that he
        had been beaten or harmed by fellow detainees at the prison. And,
        although he attempted on redirect to develop a theory that the Chi-
        nese police were encouraging or instigating the fellow detainees to
        beat him, he never wrote that on his asylum application either.
        Compare R. at 230–231, with R. at 405.
               In sum, considering that substantial evidence supported the
        immigration judge’s and the BIA’s specific, cogent reasons for find-
        ing that Mr. Feng was not credible, we cannot say that the record
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023     Page: 20 of 22

        20                     Opinion of the Court                  22-10968

        compels reversal of the adverse credibility determination. See Xia
        v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 608 F.3d 1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that
        substantial evidence supported an adverse credibility determina-
        tion where the applicant’s testimony “included at least one internal
        inconsistency” and “one omission”); Chen v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 463
        F.3d 1228, 1232–33 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that substantial evi-
        dence supported an adverse credibility determination where there
        were various inconsistencies).
                                          3
               Mr. Feng raises several arguments attacking the adverse
        credibility finding, but they are all unpersuasive.
               Mr. Feng contends that his testimony at the hearing regard-
        ing the broken window was a “minor inconsistency.” See Peti-
        tioner’s Br. at 21. We disagree. The discrepancies in Mr. Feng’s
        testimony are hardly “minor.” As the BIA observed, “whether or
        not [Mr. Feng] broke a window during a protest (and was therefore
        arrested), and whether or not he was beaten by the authorities and
        by fellow detainees while under arrest are matters that go to the
        heart of [his] claim with regard to the nature, circumstances, and
        severity of the harm that he allegedly suffered.” R. at 5. In any
        event, an immigration judge can consider any inaccuracy or false-
        hood, regardless of whether it “goes to the heart of the applicant’s
        claim, or any other factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). See Chen,
        463 F.3d at 1233 (rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the incon-
        sistencies in the record were trivial and irrelevant to the dispositive
        issues).
USCA11 Case: 22-10968     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 08/02/2023    Page: 21 of 22

        22-10968              Opinion of the Court                       21

               Additionally, Mr. Feng argues that he did not mention the
        physical abuse he suffered because neither his attorney nor the asy-
        lum officer asked him questions that would have elicited a response
        that he had been physically harmed. See Petitioner’s Br. at 29–31.
        We remain unconvinced. As the immigration judge noted, Mr.
        Feng, was asked “three times” by the asylum officer in his credible
        fear interview if he had been physically harmed, but he never said
        he had been. See R. at 115. And at the hearing, Mr. Feng had ample
        opportunity to testify during direct examination about the physical
        harm he had endured, but he never did. See R. at 209–213. Thus,
        Mr. Feng’s attempt to deflect the blame for his inconsistent testi-
        mony is unpersuasive.
               Likewise, Mr. Feng’s contention that he did not mention the
        physical abuse during his credible fear interview because he did not
        think of it at that moment and because he was nervous and con-
        fused, is unavailing. See Petitioner’s Br. at 31–32. An applicant’s
        tenable explanation for an inconsistency or implausibility will not
        necessarily warrant reversal, particularly where corroborating evi-
        dence is lacking. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1233. Here, Mr. Feng’s ex-
        planation falls flat because when the asylum officer read Mr. Feng
        the summary of his testimony, he not only agreed with it, but also
        made an addendum correcting the asylum officer. See R. at 258. As
        the immigration judge correctly observed, this demonstrated that
        Mr. Feng “understood the interpreter, that he understood the in-
        terview, he participated in it meaningfully, and understood it well
        enough to make corrections to the asylum officer’s statements at
        the end of the interview.” R. at 116. Even months after his credible
USCA11 Case: 22-10968      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 08/02/2023      Page: 22 of 22

        22                      Opinion of the Court                   22-10968

        fear interview, when any alleged confusion and nervousness had
        sufficient time to fade, Mr. Feng still failed to include the physical
        abuse he sustained from the other detainees in his asylum applica-
        tion. See R. at 405.
                Finally, Mr. Feng argues that if his documentary evidence
        would have been admitted, it would have “overcome any per-
        ceived inconsistencies or weaknesses in his testimony.” Peti-
        tioner’s Br. at 36–37. This argument fails because, as the BIA ex-
        plained, Mr. Feng “does not argue or even suggest that the docu-
        ments which he sought to introduce past the court-imposed dead-
        line rehabilitate his credibility or resolve the credibility concerns
        which served as a basis for denying relief in this case.” R. at 6. Mr.
        Feng’s argument also fails because “[a] denial of relief [ ] can be
        supported solely by an adverse credibility determination, especially
        if the alien fails to produce corroborating evidence.” Lyashchynska,
        676 F.3d at 967. See also Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340,
        1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Th[e] language in [8 C.F.R. § 208.13] plainly
        indicates that if the trier of fact either does not believe the applicant
        or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corrob-
        orate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.”).
                                           IV
                The BIA did not err in dismissing Mr. Feng’s appeal challeng-
        ing the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,
        withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on the adverse cred-
        ibility ﬁnding.
               PETITION DENIED.