USCA11 Case: 19-14213 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14213 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-353-277 WALTER ALBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 14, 2020) Before GRANT, LUCK and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-14213 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 Page: 2 of 9 Walter Alberto Garcia, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge (IJ)’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 Garcia argues the BIA and IJ erred in finding his testimony was not credible or corroborated by sufficient evidence. After review, 2 we deny the petition. I. DISCUSSION An asylum applicant must meet the definition of a refugee under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The INA defines a refugee as “any person who is outside any country of such person’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 a protected ground, including political opinion. Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The standard for withholding of removal 1 The BIA explained the IJ denied Garcia’s asylum claim as time-barred but did not expressly affirm the denial of asylum on this basis or address Garcia’s changed circumstances argument. Instead, the BIA affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on an adverse credibility finding. We therefore reject the government’s contention Garcia has abandoned his asylum claim or that we lack jurisdiction to review it. 2 We review factual findings under the highly deferential substantial evidence test, which requires us to “view the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and IJ to the extent of the agreement. See Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). 2 USCA11 Case: 19-14213 Date Filed: 10/14/2020 Page: 3 of 9 is more stringent, requiring an applicant to show he would “more likely than not” be persecuted or tortured upon return to his country because of a protected ground. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005). An applicant’s credible testimony may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof for asylum or withholding of removal without corroboration. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(a), 208.16(b). Conversely, the denial of relief “can be supported solely by an adverse credibility determination, especially if the alien fails to produce corroborating evidence.” Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 676 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals