20-4025 Rahman v. Garland BIA
Poczter, IJ
A209 240 149
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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 18th day of April, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHAHIDUR RAHMAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-4025 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Mahfuzur Rahman, Esq., Elmhurst, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony C.
1 Payne, Assistant Director; 2 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, 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 Shahidur Rahman, a native and citizen of 11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 18, 2020, decision of 12 the BIA affirming a May 10, 2018, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 14 of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 15 Torture (“CAT”). In re Shahidur Rahman, No. A 209 240 149 16 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 240 149 (Immig. Ct. 17 N.Y. City May 10, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 22 review adverse credibility determinations for substantial 23 evidence, Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 24 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are
3
1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “The scope of review under the substantial 4 evidence standard is exceedingly narrow, and we will uphold 5 the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner demonstrates that 6 the record evidence was so compelling that no reasonable 7 factfinder could fail to find him eligible for relief.” Singh 8 v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal 9 quotation marks omitted). The IJ may, “[c]onsidering the 10 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on 11 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements or 12 between his statements and other evidence, on the demeanor or 13 responsiveness of the applicant, or on the inherent 14 plausibility of the applicant’s account “without regard to 15 whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to 16 the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s adverse 18 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 19 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 20 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 21 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei
4
1 Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. 2 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 3 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on an 4 omission in Rahman’s story during his credible fear 5 interview. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. During the 6 interview Rahman failed to mention being followed in November 7 2015, despite being asked why he waited two years after his 8 last attack to leave Bangladesh. At the interview, he 9 responded that he was not financially able to leave sooner 10 and was not able to leave because he was hiding from the Awami 11 League. In contrast, he testified that he left Bangladesh 12 in December 2015 because an Awami League member followed him 13 home from work in November 2015. The agency did not err in 14 relying on this omission because it creates an inconsistency 15 in Rahman’s story about why he left Bangladesh when he did. 16 See Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144, 149–50 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 (upholding adverse credibility determination where “asylum 18 application did not simply omit incidents of persecution 19 . . . [but] [r]ather . . . described the same incidents of 20 persecution differently”). 21 The agency also reasonably relied on typographical errors
5
1 and canned statements in Rahman’s corroborating evidence. 2 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) 3 (“Submission of inconsistent statements as well as a 4 fraudulent document in support of an asylum application can 5 constitute substantial evidence supporting an adverse 6 credibility determination.”); Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 563 7 (2d Cir. 2006) (“An applicant may be required to provide any 8 reasonably available documentation to corroborate the 9 elements of her claim . . . and an IJ may rely on the failure 10 to do so in finding that the applicant has not met her burden 11 of proof.”). Rahman submitted English-language medical 12 documents to corroborate his treatment following a beating 13 and injuries sustained in a bombing, but the letterhead on 14 those documents contained spelling errors calling into 15 question their reliability as official documents. The IJ 16 reasonably concluded that Rahman’s “lack of education or 17 knowledge of the contents of his documents does not explain 18 why these documents, which were supposedly created by 19 English-speaking medical professionals, would contain these 20 spelling mistakes.” See Majidi v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 77, 80 21 (2d Cir. 2005) (stating that the agency need not credit an
6
1 applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless “a 2 reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his 3 testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). Letters from his 4 mother, coworker, and wife contained similar statements with 5 the same misspellings of words. Moreover, contradicting his 6 testimony that the authors of the letters did not see his 7 application, his own written statement contained a similar 8 language with the same errors. The IJ reasonably concluded 9 that the errors in these documents undermined their validity 10 and Rahman’s credibility overall. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. 11 Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524–27 (2d Cir. 2007) 12 (upholding adverse credibility determination based primarily 13 on “striking similarities between affidavits,” which 14 indicated that the story was “canned”); Siewe v. Gonzales, 15 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false document 16 or a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable 17 to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s 18 uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). 19 In sum, substantial evidence supports the adverse 20 credibility determination because Rahman’s omission from his 21 credible fear interview created inconsistency in his story
7
1 and the errors in his documentary evidence called into 2 question the validity of that evidence and further undermined 3 his credibility. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166–67; Biao 4 Yang, 496 F.3d at 273; Mei Chai Ye, 489 F.3d at 524. The 5 adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 6 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 7 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 8 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 11 stays VACATED.
12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court