Case: 18-12709 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12709 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-310-896 MD JHILLUR RAHMAN, a.k.a. Jhillur Rahman, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 9, 2019) Before NEWSOM, BRANCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12709 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Jhillur Rahman seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)1 based on an adverse credibility finding. Rahman argues the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the discrepancies the IJ cited were either not significant or not actual discrepancies, and both the IJ and BIA ignored important supporting documents that substantiated his claims. After review, 2 we deny Rahman’s petition. We review the BIA’s factual determinations, including credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence test, we review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the BIA’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. at 1255. We “must affirm the . . . decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole,” and we do not substitute our own 1 Because Rahman failed to raise an argument regarding the denial of his CAT claim before the BIA, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies and we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of his CAT claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 We review the BIA’s decision only, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion or IJ’s reasoning. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 Case: 18-12709 Date Filed: 05/09/2019 Page: 3 of 6 judgment for that of the BIA with respect to credibility findings. Id. at 1254-55. The BIA may base a credibility determination on the following: . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[A]n adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals