20-3681 Mohamed v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A205 901 397
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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of September, two thousand twenty-three.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
MOHAMED SALAH NASR MOHAMED, Petitioner,
v. 20-3681 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Esq., Law Office of Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Mohamed Salah Nasr Mohamed, a native of Saudi Arabia and
citizen of Sudan, seeks review of a September 28, 2020, decision of the BIA
affirming a March 23, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Salah Nasr Mohamed, No. A 205 901 397
(B.I.A. Sep. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 901 397 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Mar. 23,
2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history.
Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s
decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).
The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative
findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly,
we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the
factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113
(2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An IJ may “base a credibility
determination” on, among other things, the “inherent plausibility” of the
applicant’s account and the consistency between the account and other evidence
of record, “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(iii). We will
defer to the IJ’s credibility determination unless “no reasonable fact-finder could
make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination in this
case, which was based on two aspects of Mohamed’s testimony that the IJ
determined were inherently implausible. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
63, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[A]n IJ is entitled to consider whether the
applicant’s story is inherently implausible.”); see also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891
3 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for
“substantial evidence”).
First, Mohamed testified that he was a member of the Democratic Unionist
Party and was arrested and detained on August 30, 2006, while demonstrating
against the construction of a dam in a historically Nubian area of Sudan. While
record evidence confirmed that a Democratic Unionist Party protest was held that
day in the same city Mohamed had identified, the protest was about commodities
prices, not the construction of a dam. When asked to explain this discrepancy,
Mohamed stated he had no knowledge of the other protest. The agency
reasonably found Mohamed’s lack of knowledge to be implausible because the
protest, which received media coverage, took place in the same city and was
organized by a political party in which both he and his father were purportedly
active. The agency’s finding of implausibility was “tethered to record evidence,
and there is nothing else in the record from which a firm conviction of error could
properly be derived.” Wensheng Yan, 509 F.3d at 67.
Mohamed argues that his lack of knowledge of the other protest could be
explained by Sudan’s lack of free press, but this explanation is contrary to
Mohamed’s testimony that newspapers write about all the demonstrations.
4 Moreover, Mohamed failed to rehabilitate his implausible testimony by not
providing sufficient corroborating evidence that the dam protest ever occurred.
See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure
to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of
corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that
has already been called into question.”). Accordingly, Mohamed’s reading of
events is not compelled by the record and, on our deferential review, does not
warrant disturbing the agency’s conclusion to the contrary. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
The adverse credibility determination is further supported by the
inconsistency between Mohamed’s testimony and a letter from a Democratic
Unionist Party official in the United States about the extent of his involvement
with the party. Mohamed testified that he never attended any party meetings in
the United States and was not involved with the Democratic Unionist Party in the
United States. The letter, however, stated that Mohamed was an active member
of the party, responsible for posting and distributing the party’s memos and
calling members to attend the party’s meeting. Mohamed failed to provide an
explanation for this inconsistency when confronted with it at the hearing.
5 Mohamed now argues that the agency should have interpreted the letter as
detailing Mohamed’s political activities in Sudan as well. But as with the
inconsistency above, Mohamed’s alternative reading is not compelled by this
record. Accordingly, the agency reasonably relied on this inconsistency in
making its adverse credibility finding and determining, as a result, that Mohamed
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
20-3681 Mohamed v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A205 901 397
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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of September, two thousand twenty-three.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
MOHAMED SALAH NASR MOHAMED, Petitioner,
v. 20-3681 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Esq., Law Office of Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Mohamed Salah Nasr Mohamed, a native of Saudi Arabia and
citizen of Sudan, seeks review of a September 28, 2020, decision of the BIA
affirming a March 23, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Salah Nasr Mohamed, No. A 205 901 397
(B.I.A. Sep. 28, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 901 397 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Mar. 23,
2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history.
Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s
decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).
The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative
findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly,
we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the
factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113
(2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An IJ may “base a credibility
determination” on, among other things, the “inherent plausibility” of the
applicant’s account and the consistency between the account and other evidence
of record, “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(iii). We will
defer to the IJ’s credibility determination unless “no reasonable fact-finder could
make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination in this
case, which was based on two aspects of Mohamed’s testimony that the IJ
determined were inherently implausible. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
63, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[A]n IJ is entitled to consider whether the
applicant’s story is inherently implausible.”); see also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891
3 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for
“substantial evidence”).
First, Mohamed testified that he was a member of the Democratic Unionist
Party and was arrested and detained on August 30, 2006, while demonstrating
against the construction of a dam in a historically Nubian area of Sudan. While
record evidence confirmed that a Democratic Unionist Party protest was held that
day in the same city Mohamed had identified, the protest was about commodities
prices, not the construction of a dam. When asked to explain this discrepancy,
Mohamed stated he had no knowledge of the other protest. The agency
reasonably found Mohamed’s lack of knowledge to be implausible because the
protest, which received media coverage, took place in the same city and was
organized by a political party in which both he and his father were purportedly
active. The agency’s finding of implausibility was “tethered to record evidence,
and there is nothing else in the record from which a firm conviction of error could
properly be derived.” Wensheng Yan, 509 F.3d at 67.
Mohamed argues that his lack of knowledge of the other protest could be
explained by Sudan’s lack of free press, but this explanation is contrary to
Mohamed’s testimony that newspapers write about all the demonstrations.
4 Moreover, Mohamed failed to rehabilitate his implausible testimony by not
providing sufficient corroborating evidence that the dam protest ever occurred.
See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure
to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of
corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that
has already been called into question.”). Accordingly, Mohamed’s reading of
events is not compelled by the record and, on our deferential review, does not
warrant disturbing the agency’s conclusion to the contrary. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
The adverse credibility determination is further supported by the
inconsistency between Mohamed’s testimony and a letter from a Democratic
Unionist Party official in the United States about the extent of his involvement
with the party. Mohamed testified that he never attended any party meetings in
the United States and was not involved with the Democratic Unionist Party in the
United States. The letter, however, stated that Mohamed was an active member
of the party, responsible for posting and distributing the party’s memos and
calling members to attend the party’s meeting. Mohamed failed to provide an
explanation for this inconsistency when confronted with it at the hearing.
5 Mohamed now argues that the agency should have interpreted the letter as
detailing Mohamed’s political activities in Sudan as well. But as with the
inconsistency above, Mohamed’s alternative reading is not compelled by this
record. Accordingly, the agency reasonably relied on this inconsistency in
making its adverse credibility finding and determining, as a result, that Mohamed
failed to show that he had experienced past persecution based on a relevant
ground. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must
do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure
relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to
credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Mohamed failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. “[T]o
establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past
persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities . . . are either aware
of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The IJ here found
insufficient evidence that authorities in Sudan would be interested in Mohamed
because he had not been involved in Sudanese politics since 2006, had not
6 provided evidence that the government otherwise knows of his activities or would
seek to persecute him upon return, and had not shown that Nubians like himself
are targeted for persecution. This finding, which the BIA upheld, is supported by
substantial evidence. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
(per curiam) (holding that a fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable
if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best”).
The agency’s unfavorable asylum determinations were dispositive across
Mohamed’s applications because asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief 1 were all based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
1We decline to consider Mohamed’s argument that he warrants CAT protection due to his status as a failed asylum-seeker because the argument is both unexhausted and raised in a conclusory manner with no record evidence supporting it. Although exhaustion is not jurisdictional, see Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1120 (2023), it is “mandatory” when, as here, the Government has raised it as a defense, see Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming applicant’s “claim abandoned” where he raised an issue in “only a single conclusory sentence”). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court