The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13034 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 29, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency Nos. A95-553-639,
A95-553-640
ANDRES OLIVERA,
ERIKA PATRICIA PEDRAZA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(December 29, 2008)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Andres Olivera (“Olivera”), a native and citizen of Colombia,
appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision, affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, and withholding of removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). On appeal, Olivera argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination was clearly erroneous, and further asserts that he established past
persecution, and a well-founded fear of future persecution so as to qualify him for
asylum relief, and that he was eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own decision, our review is limited only
to that decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. See
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). An IJ’s credibility
determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, which
provides that an IJ’s decision will not be reversed, unless the evidence compels a
reasonable factfinder to find otherwise. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228,
1230-31 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). We must affirm if the
decision “is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.” Bigler v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 728, 732 (11th
Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). “The trier of fact must determine
credibility, and [we] may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the [IJ] with
respect to credibility findings.” D-Muhumed v. United States Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d
814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
The fact that an applicant provides “tenable” explanations concerning the
“implausible aspects of his claim” does not compel a finding that the IJ’s or BIA’s
credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly
where the applicant does not provide corroborating evidence. Chen, 463 F.3d at
1233. When an asylum applicant produces no evidence other than his testimony,
an adverse credibility determination is alone sufficient to support the denial of an
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Ruiz v. United States Att’y
Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, if the applicant
produces other evidence of his persecution, “it is not sufficient for the IJ [or BIA]
to rely solely on an adverse credibility determination in those instances.” Id.
Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Moreover, because Olivera failed to provide corroborating evidence in
support of his claim, the adverse credibility determination is sufficient to support
the denial of is petition. Accordingly, we deny his petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3