Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rahman Majibur SHAIK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark FILIP, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-4809.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2009.
    Edward J. Cuccia, Ferro & Cuccia, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Jason S. Patil, Trial Attorney (Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation) U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    PRESENT: Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Mark Filip is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as a respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Rahman Majibur Shaik, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of an October 2, 2007, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming an August 26, 2005, decision of an Immigration Judge, which ordered Shaik removed on the grounds that he procured his initial temporary lawful permanent resident status by fraudulently claiming that he had worked on a farm. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the procedural history of this case, and the scope of the issues presented by this petition.

Even assuming that evidence procured pursuant to an initial search — including Shaik’s signed affidavit admitting that he had never worked on a farm, but had paid someone for fraudulent papers certifying that he had worked on a farm — was inadmissible, the Immigration Judge did not err in concluding that Shaik did not testify credibly at trial in support of his claim of having worked on a farm. As the Immigration Judge concluded, Shaik “provided almost no details about the alleged work” and “was unable to give any details about the location of the farm.” Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the agency’s conclusions were erroneous.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is hereby DENIED.