BK v. Barr
This text of BK v. Barr (BK v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
18-1138 BK v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A202 125 042 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 B HIRIRA BK, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1138 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Linda Y. 2 Cheng, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner B Hirira BK, a native and citizen of Nepal,
11 seeks review of a March 19, 2018 decision of the BIA
12 affirming a June 26, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge
13 (“IJ”) denying BK’s application for asylum, withholding of
14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
15 (“CAT”). In re B Hirira BK, No. A 202 125 042 (B.I.A. Mar.
16 19, 2018), aff’g No. A 202 125 042 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jun.
17 26, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
18 underlying facts and procedural history.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
20 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
21 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the
22 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial
23 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v.
24 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the 2 1 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a
2 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the
3 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . ,
4 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and
5 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each
6 such statement, the consistency of such statements with
7 other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an
8 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
9 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8
10 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
11 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
12 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
13 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin
14 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong
15 Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. The adverse credibility
16 determination is supported by substantial evidence.
17 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies BK’s
18 testimony, his prior statements, and his documentary
19 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For example,
20 BK gave inconsistent testimony about the chronology of
21 events. He alternatively alleged that he fled his village
22 for Kathmandu in November 2013 after the Maoists attacked 3 1 him at his home, or that he fled in April 2014; that he
2 stayed in Kathmandu for two or three months, for six months ,
3 or for one month before going to Qatar; that he returned to
4 his village five or six times after fleeing, or that he
5 never returned; and that he stopped working after the
6 Maoists attacked him, or that he continued to work after he
7 fled to Kathmandu.
8 The only explanation BK provided for these
9 inconsistencies is that he had a poor memory and that this
10 may relate to the Maoists’ attacks. The IJ was not required
11 to accept this explanation because BK was able to provide a
12 specific chronology of events in his application. See
13 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
14 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
15 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
16 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
17 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
18 omitted)).
19 The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by
20 inconsistencies between BK’s statements and his documentary
21 evidence, as well as by lack of reliable corroboration. The
22 IJ reasonably found that BK’s evidence omitted key events 4 1 and contradicted his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
2 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to
3 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,
4 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
5 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
6 been called into question.”). For example, BK’s wife’s
7 letter does not mention that she was harmed, but BK
8 testified that she was severely beaten when the Maoists came
9 to his home. Also, a letter from a leader of the Rastriya
10 Prajatantra Party, with which BK was affiliated, reflects
11 that the leader was aware of BK’s problems with the Maoists.
12 But BK testified inconsistently both that he told the party
13 about the threats and attacks and that he never told them.
14 Even absent these inconsistencies, we defer to the the
15 agency’s decision to give little weight to BK’s documentary
16 evidence—documents and letters from Nepal—because the
17 documents were not authenticated and the authors were not
18 available for cross-examination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741
19 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer to the
20 agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an
21 applicant’s documentary evidence.”); see also In re H-L-H- &
22 Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 214 n.5, 215 (BIA 2010) 5 1 (finding that unsworn letters from friends and family did
2 not provide substantial support for claims because they were
3 from interested witnesses not subject to cross-examination
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
BK v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bk-v-barr-ca2-2020.