USCA11 Case: 21-12426 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12426 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANIL ZOOD, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A201-755-969 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12426 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 21-12426 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Anil Zood seeks review of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and request for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16, based on the IJ and BIA’s finding that Zood was not credible. He argues he satisfactorily explained any evidentiary inconsistencies supporting the IJ and BIA’s adverse credibility de- termination and that he was entitled to CAT relief. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted or explicitly agreed with the opinion of the IJ. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). “Insofar as the BIA adopts the IJ's reasoning, we review the IJ's decision as well.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to consider issues where a petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, which includes arguments that were not presented to the BIA. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). We review credibility determinations under the substantial- evidence test. Chen, 463 F.3d at 1230–31. “The trier of fact must USCA11 Case: 21-12426 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 3 of 5 21-12426 Opinion of the Court 3 determine credibility, and this court may not substitute our judg- ment for that of the BIA with respect to credibility findings.” D- Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004). While a credibility determination may not be based on speculation and conjecture, “our review of an IJ’s credibility determination is extremely deferential,” and the IJ need only provide specific and cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination. Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 493–94 (11th Cir. 2013). We will reverse the IJ’s credibility findings “only if the evi- dence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Sepul- veda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 n.1 (1992)). An IJ’s denial of asylum “can be supported solely by an ad- verse credibility determination, especially if the [petitioner] fails to produce corroborating evidence.” Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. How- ever, even if a petitioner is found to be …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals