Adverse Credibility and Exhaustion of Independent Torture-Protection Claims

Henry Alejandro Salazar Delgado v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 25-12847 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026) (not for publication).

Introduction

Henry Alejandro Salazar Delgado sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after leaving Venezuela with his wife, Anna Sofia Calderon Romero, and their daughter. He said that his work for the opposition First Justice party led to threats, harassment, and vandalism. An immigration judge found that his and his wife’s accounts were not credible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit considered whether substantial evidence supported that finding, whether the Board adequately considered the evidence, and whether it could review CAT arguments that Salazar Delgado had not presented to the Board.

Summary of the Opinion

The court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. Materially different accounts of threats from Salazar Delgado’s employer and anonymous callers, the threat allegedly made against his daughter, the vandalism of his car, and shooting at a protest supported the adverse credibility finding. The Board also gave reasoned consideration to the claims: it identified the decisive conflicts and explained its decision, even though it did not discuss every document. Finally, the court declined to reach new, non-credibility CAT arguments because Salazar Delgado had not raised their core issues before the Board.

Analysis

Precedents cited and their roles

Review and proof. Hasan-Nayem v. U.S. Att'y Gen. supplied the rules for reviewing the Board’s reasoning and supported several credibility propositions: discrepancies need not concern a dispositive issue, witness conflicts may matter, and an adjudicator need not accept a plausible explanation for an inconsistency. Adefemi v. Ashcroft established the deferential substantial-evidence test: another plausible reading of the record does not warrant reversal unless the evidence compels it. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att'y Gen., quoted through Hasan-Nayem v. U.S. Att'y Gen., reinforced that an appellate court cannot substitute its own credibility judgment. Lopez v. U.S. Att'y Gen. likewise confirmed that a possible contrary conclusion is insufficient.

Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen. placed the burden of proving eligibility on the applicant and required consideration of evidence beyond disbelieved testimony. Chen v. U.S. Att'y Gen. described the need for specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility finding and the asylum requirement of credible evidence of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att'y Gen. explained that credible testimony can, by itself, meet the burden. Conversely, Xia v. U.S. Att'y Gen. recognized that an adverse credibility finding may support denial when corroboration is lacking. Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att'y Gen. illustrated that such a finding can sustain denial across asylum, withholding, and CAT claims; the opinion also cited Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen. on failure to establish the underlying merits. Those authorities did not eliminate the need to consider an independently supported CAT theory—the court addressed reviewability of such theories separately.

Limits on credibility and evidence review. Serra v. U.S. Att'y Gen. cautioned against cherry-picking facts or dwelling excessively on insignificant discrepancies; the court distinguished it because the conflicts here concerned whether the family faced physical danger. Carrizo v. U.S. Att'y Gen. supported treating the omission of significant alleged threats from an asylum interview as relevant, while confirming that an adjudicator need not discuss every piece of evidence. Garland v. Ming Dai recognized an adjudicator’s ability to credit all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony. Mohammed v. U.S. Att'y Gen. required consideration of corroborating evidence but not that it receive decisive weight.

Reasoned consideration. Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen. established de novo review of whether the Board genuinely considered the claims and warned against overlooking highly relevant evidence. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att'y Gen. illustrated what an adequately explained agency decision can contain. Jeune v. U.S. Att'y Gen. identified failures such as misstating the record or giving reasons unresponsive to it. Farah v. U.S. Att'y Gen. clarified that unmentioned evidence is “highly relevant” in this context when its omission makes the agency’s reasoning appear illogical, not merely because it was submitted. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y Gen. distinguished review for reasoned consideration from a reweighing of evidentiary sufficiency. Responding to an objection that the court was inventing an agency rationale, the opinion cited SEC v. Chenery Corp. and Calcutt v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.: a reviewing court must judge an agency action on the agency’s grounds. The court held that explaining why undiscussed reports did not bear on the Board’s actual credibility reasoning did not supply a new ground.

Administrative exhaustion. Santos-Zacaria v. Garland established that statutory exhaustion is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar; Kemokai v. U.S. Att'y Gen. directed its enforcement when the government invokes it. Laguna Rivera v. U.S. Att'y Gen. and Indrawati v. U.S. Att'y Gen. required an applicant to present the core issue to the Board, rather than rely on an unadorned reference to a form of relief. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen. foreclosed Salazar Delgado’s contention that the Board’s own discussion excused his failure to raise his independent CAT arguments. The opinion noted that Santos-Zacaria v. Garland had abrogated several older decisions on the distinct question of whether exhaustion is jurisdictional.

Legal reasoning

The court applied the statutory “totality of the circumstances” credibility standard and asked whether the record compelled rejection of the agency’s findings. It did not. Salazar Delgado’s descriptions of how often his boss threatened him—and whether the boss threatened his life—changed between his written statement, asylum interview, and hearing. His testimony and his wife’s also conflicted with earlier descriptions of threatening calls and with the written claim that someone threatened to kill their newborn daughter.

The claimed car damage presented a further evidentiary problem. Although Salazar Delgado said vandals forced the passenger-side door and graffitied death threats, photographs taken for his insurer showed neither feature. His accounts also differed over damage to the trunk. At the hearing, he initially described armed Chavistas firing toward protesters, then clarified that the shots went into the air. The court held that these were not merely peripheral details: they bore on the nature and seriousness of the danger asserted. The immigration judge could consider his explanations involving nervousness without accepting them.

The court separately examined corroboration. Salazar Delgado had not produced the alleged threatening texts or asked relatives who held his old phone for access to them. Nor did his car photographs show the threats or door damage. The Board considered the photographs and sufficiently explained why the testimony and corroboration did not establish eligibility. Its failure to discuss party-membership documents and general country reports did not undermine that explanation: those materials did not resolve the specific disputed threats and incidents on which its credibility ruling rested.

On CAT protection, the distinction was procedural as well as evidentiary. Salazar Delgado had challenged credibility before the Board, so the court reviewed that challenge. But he had not argued there that country conditions independently established a torture risk, that the Board misapplied government acquiescence, or that CAT regulations limited the corroboration demanded. Merely naming CAT among the requested forms of relief did not exhaust those separate arguments.

Impact

The opinion demonstrates how several concrete conflicts about alleged physical threats can sustain an adverse credibility finding even when an applicant offers a broadly consistent account of political opposition. It also distinguishes an agency’s duty to consider corroboration from an obligation to accept it or discuss every document. For future litigants, the exhaustion ruling underscores the need to present an independently supported CAT theory to the Board, not simply to challenge a credibility finding that affects multiple forms of relief. Because the opinion is marked “not for publication,” it should be understood as an application of cited law rather than a new binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Adverse credibility determination: An agency finding that an account is not reliable enough to prove the claimed events. It must rest on articulated reasons assessed in context.
• Substantial-evidence review: The appellate court does not decide which account it prefers. It overturns the agency’s factual finding only if the record requires the opposite finding.
• Corroboration: Supporting material, such as messages, photographs, or affidavits. An agency must consider submitted evidence, but may find that it does not resolve the important gaps.
• Reasoned consideration: An explanation showing that the agency understood and addressed the decisive issues—not a written discussion of every item in the record.
• Exhaustion: Presenting an argument to the Board before asking a federal court to review it. Raising one challenge to a CAT denial does not necessarily preserve a different CAT theory.

Conclusion

Salazar Delgado’s petition failed because substantial evidence supported the agency’s specific credibility findings, the Board adequately explained its treatment of the decisive evidence, and his independent CAT arguments had not been raised administratively. The case’s central lesson is that credibility, corroboration, and preservation of arguments are distinct requirements—each can determine whether a protection claim receives relief or appellate review.