Oscar Ariel Vallecio-Romero v. U.S. Attorney General, 704 F. App'x 886

Vallecio-Romero, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in Feb. 2014 and later applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection after alleging he feared return because he reported the murder of his half‑brother Gonzalez and then received threats.
At the border, he gave a sworn statement saying he came to the U.S. to work and study and did not fear persecution; in later interviews and his application he described fearing gang retaliation for reporting the killing.
Record evidence included inconsistent accounts about Gonzalez’s age, date and duration of disappearance, manner of death, and whether Vallecio‑Romero was Gonzalez’s half‑brother; documentary evidence (birth and death certificates) contained discrepancies.
The IJ found Vallecio‑Romero not credible, citing inconsistencies between his border statement, credible‑fear interview, asylum application, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence; the IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Vallecio‑Romero appealed to the BIA only on CAT grounds; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse‑credibility finding and held that, absent credible testimony, he failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with government acquiescence if returned.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision (and the IJ to the extent adopted), applied the substantial‑evidence standard, and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA erred in making an adverse‑credibility finding	Vallecio‑Romero argued his testimony was credible and documentary evidence corroborated his claim	DHS/BIA argued multiple material inconsistencies and questionable documentary validity supported the adverse‑credibility finding	Court held the IJ/BIA provided specific, cogent reasons supported by substantial evidence; adverse‑credibility finding affirmed
Whether inconsistencies compelled reversal	Vallecio‑Romero argued his explanations made inconsistencies tenable	Government argued explanations were themselves inconsistent and insufficient to overcome discrepancies	Held explanations did not compel reversal under the highly deferential standard
Whether Vallecio‑Romero established CAT entitlement despite adverse credibility	Vallecio‑Romero contended record showed risk of torture by or with government acquiescence	BIA/IJ argued that without credible testimony the record does not compel a finding of likely torture with government acquiescence	Held petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with government acquiescence; CAT relief denied
Whether asylum/withholding claims are reviewable here	Vallecio‑Romero did not challenge denial of asylum/withholding to the BIA	Government argued those claims were unexhausted/abandoned	Held claims unexhausted/abandoned and not reviewed by the court

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (scope of review for BIA decisions and when IJ reasoning is reviewed)
Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (requirement that IJ give specific, cogent reasons for adverse‑credibility findings; review standard)
Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review and deference to agency credibility determinations)
Reyes‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (elements required to establish CAT protection)
Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (review of BIA decisions that adopt IJ reasoning)
Amaya‑Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement for claims before the BIA)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (abandonment of issues not raised before the BIA)