NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1777 ___________ ABDOUL AZIZE PORGO Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A201-745-163) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on May 11, 2021 ______________ Before: McKEE, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 18, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ McKee, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Abdoul Porgo seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge denied Porgo’s petition because it found Porgo did not testify credibly, and that Porgo failed to corroborate his claims. The BIA affirmed on both grounds. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the BIA’s decision and deny the petition for review.1 I. We generally review only the decision of the BIA, but we “also review the IJ’s decision to the extent it is adopted, affirmed, or substantially relied upon by the BIA.”2 We review legal conclusions de novo, and factual findings under the substantial evidence standard.3 “The substantial evidence standard requires us to determine whether the agency’s findings of fact are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.”4 Whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence.5 So too is our review of the agency’s credibility determination.6 We give “exceptional deference” to “an IJ’s credibility determination that has been adopted by the BIA . . . , 1 We have jurisdiction over Porgo’s timely petition for review of a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and 1252(b)(1). See Guzman Orellana v. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 171, 177 (3d Cir. 2020). 2 Id. 3 Leia v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 427, 432 (3d Cir. 2005). 4 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 See Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 613 (3d Cir. 2005). 6 Leia, 393 F.3d at 432. 2 recognizing that the IJ ‘alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence.’”7 Porgo argues that the adverse credibility conclusions of the IJ and BIA went “against the substantial weight of the evidence, which, taken together, compels a conclusion that Mr. Porgo testified credibly.”8 This claim is belied by the record. The BIA held that the “Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding . . . was supported by specific, cogent reasons and permissibly based on, among other things, inconsistencies and omissions between [Porgo’s] testimony and documentary evidence.”9 Our review of the record affirms that conclusion: the record contains multiple discrepancies, and we agree that Porgo’s explanations for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals