Case: 19-12781 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12781 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-931-288 XIU ZHENG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 15, 2020) Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12781 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2 of 10 Xiu Zheng seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Zheng argues that the BIA erred in concluding (1) that he did not provide credible testimony; (2) that his corroborating evidence was insufficient to establish a well- founded fear of persecution to qualify for asylum; and (3) that he was ineligible for withholding of removal or CAT protection. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings, we affirm. As the facts of the case are familiar to the parties, we will proceed straight to the merits of Zheng’s appeal, taking each of his arguments in turn. I “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). “Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement.” Id. “We do not consider issues that were not reached by the BIA.”1 Id. We review all conclusions of law by the BIA de novo, but we review factual 1 Here, therefore, we need not discuss Zheng’s arguments pertaining to the IJ’s findings surrounding his church attendance in the United States, as the BIA did not rely on those findings in its order. Gonzalez, 820 F.3d at 403. 2 Case: 19-12781 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 3 of 10 findings under the 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.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Likewise, we review credibility determinations under the substantial- evidence test. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006). Under this highly deferential standard, we must affirm the BIA’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. D- Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 817–18 (11th Cir. 2004). Factual findings “may be reversed . . . only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). II ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals