Ermal Ametaj v. U.S. Attorney General , 238 F. App'x 553 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 18, 2007
No. 07-10155 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A97-385-145
ERMAL AMETAJ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(July 18, 2007)
Before BIRCH, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ermal Ametaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal
order and denying his claim for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).1 Ametaj argues that substantial
evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding, and that the
evidence in the record compels reversal. Ametaj also contends that the IJ erred in
its finding that he did not suffer past persecution. We note that the BIA only
denied Ametaj’s claim based on an adverse credibility finding.
We review the BIA’s factual determination that an alien is ineligible for
asylum for substantial evidence. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th
Cir. 2001). Under this highly deferential standard, we must affirm “unless a
reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution
existed.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). We review credibility determinations
under the same standard, and may not substitute our judgment for that of the BIA.
D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004).
It is well settled that an adverse credibility determination alone may be
sufficient to support the BIA’s decision to deny an application for asylum,
particularly where there is no other evidence of persecution. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y
1
Ametaj also sought relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).
Because he does not contest the BIA’s denial of this claim, he has abandoned this claim. See
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
2
Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2005); see also D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at
819. Even if the BIA makes an adverse credibility determination, the BIA still
must “consider the other evidence produced by an asylum applicant.” Forgue, 401
F.3d at 1287.
Here the BIA made a clean adverse credibility determination, and
substantial evidence supports its findings. Cf. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d
1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). Ametaj had several inconsistences between his
testimony and asylum application. Ametaj testified about several instances of
violence against him in Albania. However, he was inconsistent as to the dates in
which at least one of the alleged attacks occurred. Furthermore, he testified
inconsistently with his application about who perpetrated the various attacks and
how many people participated. For example, he asserted on his application that
four civilians captured him in a van, but testified that the men were police officers
in civilian clothes. He also stated on his application that he was arrested by one
officer at his home, but testified that three officers arrested him.
The BIA also properly considered the other evidence in the record and found
that it did not corroborate Ametaj’s claims. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.
Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Ametaj’s claim. We do not review
Ametaj’s claim that the IJ erred in its past persecution analysis because the BIA
denied his claim based on an adverse credibility finding and only the BIA’s
3
decision is under review. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. Accordingly, we deny
Ametaj’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
4