Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10235 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-297-853 ALEXANDRA DEL CARMEN PUERTA YANEZ, JOHAN JOSE GREGORIO FERNANDEZ PONCE, DANIELA NAZARETH FERNANDEZ PUERTA, DANIEL ALEJANDRO FERNANDEZ PUERTA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 8, 2020) Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Before WILSON, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Alexandra Del Carmen Puerta Yanez and her husband and children seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The agency denied relief based on its finding that Puerta Yanez was not credible. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will review both decisions to the extent they agree. Id. We review factual determinations, including credibility findings, under the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We must affirm the finding “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. We review the record evidence “in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. at 1255. Accordingly, for us to reverse a finding of fact, we must determine that the record “compels” reversal. Id. 2 Case: 19-10235 Date Filed: 01/08/2020 Page: 3 of 6 Considering the totality of the circumstances, a factfinder may base a credibility finding on enumerated, nonexhaustive factors. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Consistency is key to several of them. See id. A denial of asylum can be supported solely by an adverse credibility determination. Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1304 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). To challenge an adverse credibility finding, the applicant must demonstrate that the decision was not supported by “specific, cogent reasons” or was not based on substantial evidence. Id. at 1305. In Kueviakoe, we reversed a BIA credibility determination that was based on three perceived inconsistencies. Id. at 1305–06. Those inconsistencies were insufficient to support the adverse credibility finding because no reasonable factfinder could have concluded that they were in fact inconsistencies on the record. Id. at 1305. We saw “no plausible and material inconsistency” or one “of any importance” when the petitioner’s word choice was inconsistent but “all of the other pertinent information remained the same.” Id. We credited consistency about the essence of the events themselves over superficially “inconsistent” generalizations about those events. See id. at 1305–06. And we rejected a perceived inconsistency “based on an error in reading.” Id. at 1306. Here ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals