Yodit Desta Teame v. U.S. Attorney General , 278 F. App'x 936 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 21, 2008
No. 07-13749 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A97-390-985
A97-390-986
YODIT DESTA TEAME,
ALAY MANA TARKEGN,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 21, 2008)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Yodit Desta Teame and Alay Mana Tarkegn petition this Court for review of
the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b), (c). The Board of Immigration Appeals and
immigration judge denied the applications based on a finding that Teame and
Tarkegn were not credible. We deny the petition.
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). Adverse
credibility findings will be reversed “only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable
fact finder to find otherwise.” Id. at 1231(quoting Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)). An
adverse credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies,
and falsehoods in the applicant’s oral and written statements. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Substantial evidence supports the decision that Teame and Tarkegn were not
credible. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2001).
Teame and Tarkegn presented inconsistent and implausible testimonies about their
marriage, Teame’s country of birth, where they had lived and worked, their church
attendance, and whether they had suffered persecution on account of their religion.
The immigration judge and Board provided specific, cogent reasons to support the
2
adverse credibility determination. Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. Teame and Tarkegn
offer no explanation for their inconsistencies that would “‘compel’ a reasonable
fact finder” to reverse that credibility finding or to conclude that they established
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Id.
Teame and Tarkegn’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.
3