USCA11 Case: 21-10467 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10467 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FALI PEPOCHI, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A203-821-333 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10467 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10467 Before JORDAN, GRANT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Fali Pepochi appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to uphold an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal based on an adverse-credibility determination. The IJ found several aspects of Pepochi’s testimony and record evidence to be inconsistent, and found other parts of his testimony to not be believable, lead- ing to the adverse-credibility finding, and also denied his applica- tions on alternate grounds. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s reason- ing for the adverse-credibility finding and did not reach the merits of the IJ’s alternative findings. After careful review, we deny the petition. In petitions for review of BIA decisions, we review factual determinations under the substantial evidence test. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Under this test, we view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007). The mere fact that the record may support a different conclusion is insufficient to justify a reversal of administrative findings; instead, to warrant reversal, the record must compel a contrary conclusion. Id. The BIA is not required to specifically discuss each and every piece of evidence presented by the petitioner. Point du Jour v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 960 F.3d 1348, USCA11 Case: 21-10467 Date Filed: 10/22/2021 Page: 3 of 6 21-10467 Opinion of the Court 3 1351 (11th Cir. 2020). We review questions of law de novo, Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008), including claims that the agency failed to give reasoned considera- tion to an issue, Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 872 (11th Cir. 2018). We only review the BIA’s decision as the final agency deci- sion unless it expressly adopted the IJ’s opinion or agreed with the IJ’s reasoning. Perez Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). When the BIA adopts or agrees with IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Id. We will not consider arguments raised for the first time on ap- peal. Zhuang Ping Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1310, 1316 n.5 (11th Cir. 2009). An IJ is permitted, after considering the totality of the cir- cumstances, to base a credibility finding on various factors, in- cluding: the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements, whenever made and whether or not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals