Marie Olliver v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Marie Andrice Olliver. Decision: Affirmed. Petition Denied. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-10255

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10255
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-098-010

MARIE ANDRICE OLLIVIER,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 7, 2016)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10255

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 2 of 4

Marie Andrice Ollivier, 1 a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeal’s dismissal of her appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture based on an adverse credibility
finding. Ms. Ollivier contends that the BIA and IJ abused their discretion because
their adverse credibility findings were not supported by specific, cogent reasons or
by substantial evidence. Following review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we
deny the petition.
We review factual determinations, including credibility determinations,
under the substantial evidence test and must affirm the decision “if it is supported
by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2006). When
applying for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant’s testimony, if
credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof, even without
corroborating evidence. Id. at 1255. Conversely, if an applicant relies solely on
her testimony, an adverse credibility determination may be sufficient by itself to
support the denial of an application. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282,
1287 (11th Cir. 2005).

1

Ms. Ollivier’s last name appeared in the administrative proceedings and in her opening brief as “Ollivier;” but, her
surname appears to have been docketed as “Olliver.”

2

Case: 15-10255

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 3 of 4

Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, a credibility determination may be based on
the totality of the circumstances, including (1) the demeanor, candor, and
responsiveness of the applicant; (2) the plausibility of the applicant’s account; (3)
the consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements; (4) the internal
consistency of each statement; and (5) the consistency of the applicant’s statements
with other record evidence.

See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. §

1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, an adverse credibility determination may be based
on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods, regardless of whether they relate to
the heart of an applicant’s claim. Id. When the IJ makes an adverse credibility
finding, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the decision was not
supported by “specific, cogent reasons” or was not based on substantial evidence.
Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255.
In this case, both the BIA and the IJ gave specific, cogent reasons to support
the adverse credibility finding. First, Ms. Ollivier gave conflicting statements in
her asylum interview and at the merits hearing regarding when she left her job.
Second, Ms. Ollivier was inconsistent in her description of the duration and the
route she took in her flight from Haiti to the Dominican Republic. Finally, in her
supplemental statement and her asylum interview, Ms. Ollivier failed to mention
her mother’s beating from the chain of events that propelled her forced exodus
from Haiti.
3

Case: 15-10255

Date Filed: 03/07/2016

Page: 4 of 4

The record, as a whole, does not compel a finding that Ms. Ollivier was
credible. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and the IJ’s conclusion that, in
light of the adverse credibility finding, Ms. Ollivier failed to meet her burden of
proving eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.
Thus, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.

4