Maria Luzmila Arango-Moreno v. U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 2, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13167
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A095-542-765
MARIA LUZMILA ARANGO-MORENO,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 2, 2012)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 5 --

Maria Luzmila Arango-Moreno petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ final order denying her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Arango-Moreno contends that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility
determination, which was affirmed by the BIA, is not supported by substantial
evidence.
I.
Arango-Moreno, a citizen of Colombia, entered the United States without
inspection in June 2001. She filed an application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief in April 2002 based on her political opinion. According
to the application, she was an active member of Colombia’s conservative party
before entering the United States. Because of her membership in that party, she
alleged that she was persecuted by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC).
An asylum officer interviewed Arango-Moreno in early December 2004 and
concluded that she was not a credible witness, and the Department of Homeland
Security then determined that she was not eligible for asylum. DHS instituted
removal proceedings against her. Before the IJ, Arango-Moreno conceded
removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

The IJ denied her relief, finding that, based on inconsistencies between her
application, her in-court testimony, and the documents she submitted, she was not
credible. She appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which affirmed. Arango-
Moreno then timely filed this petition for review.
II.
Arango-Moreno contends that the adverse credibility determination is not
supported by substantial evidence. Because the BIA did not expressly adopt the
IJ’s decision, we review only the BIA’s decision. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s
factfindings, including an adverse credibility determination, and review de novo
its legal conclusions. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 817–18 (11th
Cir. 2004).
To establish a claim for asylum, an applicant must establish “with specific
and credible evidence” that she is a “refugee” under the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006);
see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(1). A refugee is, among other things:
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality
. . . and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country
because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of . . . political opinion.
3

-- 3 of 5 --

Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An adverse credibility determination alone may be
sufficient to support a denial of asylum. D-Muhumed, 388 F.3d at 819.
Arango-Moreno did not credibly establish her membership in the
Colombian conservative party. She testified before the IJ that she joined the party
in 1985, but she submitted a letter from her father that indicated that she joined it
in 1991. She also submitted a letter from the Colombian conservative party that
said she joined the party in 1994.1
Nor did she credibly establish that she suffered past persecution at the hands
of FARC or that she has a well-founded fear of persecution if she returns to
Colombia. She testified that, on April 15, 2001, she was kidnaped by FARC, the
getaway car crashed, and she woke up in the hospital with an injured leg.
According to her testimony, she checked out of the hospital one day later. But she
told the asylum officer that she was hospitalized for three days after this incident.
These inconsistences provide substantial evidence supporting the adverse
credibility determination. The BIA did not err in denying her application for
asylum. Because Arango-Moreno is unable to meet the lower burden for asylum,
Arango-Moreno argues that the letters from her father and the conservative party were1
improperly translated and that the proper translations reveal that there was no inconsistency
between her in-court testimony and the information presented in the letters. But she did not
challenge the translation of the letters before the IJ or the BIA so we cannot consider the
alternative translations now. See Sundar v. I.N.S., 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003).
4

-- 4 of 5 --

she also cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal and CAT
relief because those claims for relief are based on the same underlying facts. See
Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 891 (11th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --