USCA11 Case: 21-12269 Date Filed: 03/25/2022 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12269 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MD TAFSIR HOSSAIN,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: 2 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, peti- tions 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 Treat- ment 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 “lim- ited” 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). Un- der 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: 3 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 offer- ing 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 appli- cant’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness, the plausibility of his account, the consistency between his written and oral state- ments, the internal consistency of each statement, and the con- sistency 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 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals