Chesnel Forgue, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of a final order of the *1285 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed, without opinion, a decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Forgue’s claims for political asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 1 and relief under the United Nations Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the BIA’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Forgue, a Haitian national, entered the United States illegally on February 15, 2001. He later filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article 3 of the CAT, claiming he had suffered persecution in Haiti because of his political activities. Forgue told the IJ that he allowed political candidates to speak at his family farm in Haiti. In addition, he permitted a Senate candidate for the “OPL” party to use his truck to reach voters in outlying areas.
Forgue also stated that he suffered persecution as a result of his work as an election monitor. Forgue testified that he served as a polling official for the May 2000 election in Haiti. He told the IJ that a mayoral candidate from the Fanmi La-valas party known as “TiPierre,” along with members of the candidate’s entourage, demanded to vote at the polling location Forgue had been assigned to monitor. Forgue explained that he turned the individuals away because they were not at their assigned polling location. Several days after the election, Forgue claimed he was doused in acid by TiPierre for not allowing him to vote.
According to Forgue, his troubles continued as the November 2000 election approached. TiPierre learned that Forgue had granted a member of the OPL the use of his truck during the May 2000 election. TiPierre insisted on being allowed to use the same vehicle for his own campaign efforts. When Forgue refused, TiPierre threatened him with serious harm. Sometime after this incident, Forgue testified he fled Haiti after TiPierre and a group of his supporters burned his home and beat up his son. Forgue told the IJ that he fears that if he returns to Haiti he will be harmed by members of TiPierre’s Fanmi Lavalas party.
The IJ rejected Forgue’s claims because he found that Forgue had not provided credible testimony. Forgue testified that his work as an election monitor was the reason he was attacked with acid. However, Forgue never mentioned these significant events in his asylum application. He also did not mention in his application that Fanmi Lavalas members physically assaulted his son. During his interview before an asylum officer, he likewise failed to make any reference whatsoever to these terrible acts. It was not until Forgue’s hearing before the IJ that he first mentioned these events.
The IJ denied Forgue’s application after making the adverse credibility determination and the order was later affirmed by the BIA without opinion on November 28, 2003. 2 This appeal followed.
*1286 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the IJ’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence test.
D-Muhumed v. United States Att’y Gen.,
As with other factual findings, “[cjredibility determinations likewise are reviewed under the substantial evidence test.”
D-Muhumed,
III. DISCUSSION
Because this case revolves around the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we first discuss what an alien needs to establish in order to qualify for asylum. We then discuss what role an alien’s credibility plays in the asylum process.
An alien who arrives in or is present in the United States may apply for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). To qualify for asylum, the alien must be a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is defined as
any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, 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 race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion ....
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A);
see D-Muhumed,
“To establish asylum eligibility, the alien must establish a well-founded fear that his or her political opinion (or other statutorily listed factor) will cause harm or suffering that rises to the level of persecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In order to demonstrate a sufficient connection between future persecution and the protected activity, an alien is required “to present specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution on account” of such a protected activity. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Establishing a history of past persecution creates a presumption that an alien has a well-founded fear of future persecution, although that presumption can be rebutted by the government. Id.
*1287
The asylum applicant must establish eligibility for asylum by offering “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record.”
See Sangha v. INS,
Conversely, an adverse credibility determination alone may be sufficient to support the denial of an' asylum application.
D-Muhumed,
Of course, an adverse credibility determination does not alleviate the IJ’s duty to consider other evidence produced by an asylum applicant. That is, the IJ must still consider
all
evidence introduced by the applicant. If the applicant produces no evidence other than his testimony, an adverse credibility determination is alone sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application. If, however, the applicant produces other evidence of persecution, whatever form it may take, the IJ must consider that evidence, and it is not sufficient for the IJ to rely solely on an adverse credibility determination in those instances. Further, the IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility finding.
See D-Muhumed,
Considering these factors, in this case we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Forgue was not credible when he claimed that he had suffered persecution in Haiti due to his political activities and that the IJ gave specific, cogent reasons for his credibility determination. Among other things, the IJ noted that prior to the hearing Forgue never mentioned that: (1) he had been an election monitor in the May 2000 election; (2) he had prevented Fanmi Lavólas members from committing election fraud; (3) he had been attacked with acid; or (4) his son had been severely beaten by members of the Fanmi Lavalas. 3 In light of these omissions, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Because Forgue did not produce corroborating evidence for the IJ to consider and the IJ found his testimony was *1288 not credible, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of Forgue’s asylum application. 4
PETITION DENIED.
Notes
. Because Forgue's removal proceedings commenced after April 1, 1997, the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRI-RA”), this case is governed by the permanent provisions of the INA, as amended by the IIRIRA.
Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Att'y Gen.,
. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ's order without opinion, the IJ's decision constitutes the final agency determination to be reviewed by this Court.
Gonzalez-Oropeza,
. The asylum application specifically asked whether Forgue had been involved in any political activities and if any members of his family had been mistreated by authorities in his home country.
. Because Forgue has failed to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, he necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under CAT.
Al Najjar,