The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 13, 2008
No. 07-14666 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A98-677-704 & A98-677-705
KAREN PAPYAN,
GOAR NIKOGOSYAN,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(June 13, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Karen Papyan (“Papyan”), a citizen of Russia and native of
Armenia (which was part of the U.S.S.R. at the time of Papyan’s birth), with his
wife Goar Nikogosyan as rider, petitions this Court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”), INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1231; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).
We previously issued a jurisdictional question to the parties regarding the
proper venue for Papyan’s petition. With the benefit of the full administrative
record, we conclude that the immigration proceedings below occurred in Miami,
Florida, and we do have jurisdiction to consider the instant petition. See INA
§ 242(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2); Dailide v. United States Att’y Gen., 387 F.3d
1335, 1340 n.7 (11th Cir. 2004).
Papyan argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on
the faulty ethnocentric view that the level of corruption testified to by Papyan was
implausible. Papyan notes that he provided evidence and country reports to
support the plausibility of his claim and asserts that the IJ’s credibility ruling was
based on mere conjecture.
When the BIA issues a decision with an opinion, we review that decision,
except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v.
2
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the BIA issued an opinion
that did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision and, therefore, we review the BIA’s
decision.
We review the factual determinations of the IJ and BIA under the substantial
evidence test. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1283-84; Forgue v. United States Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). Under this test, the finding must be upheld
if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284 (citation omitted). The
determination may be reversed only where the evidence would compel a
reasonable finder of fact to come to a contrary determination. Adefemi v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). “Under the substantial evidence
test, we review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s
decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. That
evidence in the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify
reversal. Id. Credibility determinations, like other factual findings, are reviewed
under the substantial evidence test. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286.
An alien may obtain asylum if he is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A
refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular group, or political opinion.
3
INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(A)(42)(A). A well-founded fear of
persecution is one that is subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. Al
Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1289. The asylum applicant carries the burden of proving that
he meets the definition of refugee. Id. at1284.
To obtain withholding of removal, an alien must show that it is more likely
than not that he will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned to his country.
Sepulveda v. United States Att’y. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005). This
standard is more stringent than the well-founded fear standard for receiving
asylum. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1292–93. Thus, if an applicant is unable to meet
the asylum standard, he is generally unable to qualify for withholding of removal.
Id. To receive CAT relief, an alien must show that it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). This standard is also
higher than the burden for showing eligibility for asylum. Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at
1302-03.
“The asylum applicant must establish eligibility for asylum by offering
credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287
(citation omitted). The credible testimony of an applicant may suffice on its own
to establish eligibility for asylum. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. “Conversely, an
adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of
an asylum application.” Id. “[T]he IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an
4
adverse credibility finding.” Id. For there to be an adverse credibility
determination, the IJ must have made an explicit, clean determination of
credibility. Yang v. United States Att’y. Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir.
2005). “Once an adverse credibility finding is made, the burden is on the applicant
alien to show that the IJ’s credibility decision was not supported by specific,
cogent reasons or was not based on substantial evidence.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at
1287 (internal quotations omitted).
After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the IJ did not clearly err
in its adverse credibility determination. The BIA accurately identified a variety of
specific, cogent reasons that the IJ relied upon in making this finding, and Papyan
does not challenge these conclusions. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. With the
adverse credibility determination in tact, substantial evidence supports the ultimate
determination that Papyan was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or
CAT relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
5