Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13171/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mamun Ansari
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13171

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A201-110-063

MAMUN ANSARI, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 6, 2016)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 1 of 7
2

Mamun Ansari, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the 

Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration 

Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. After review, we deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition.

Ansari’s application was based on claims that he suffered past persecution 

and feared future persecution in Bangladesh on account of his political activity 

with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). At a merits hearing, Ansari was 

the only witness to testify. Afterward, the IJ denied all requested relief, finding, 

inter alia, that Ansari was not credible. The BIA concluded that there was no clear 

error in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and affirmed. On appeal to this Court, 

Ansari challenges the adverse credibility finding and argues that when his 

testimony is properly credited, he establishes his eligibility for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

An asylum applicant must show, with specific and credible evidence, either 

past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a 

protected ground. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th 

Cir. 2005). Similarly, an applicant for withholding of removal must show either 

past persecution or that it is more likely than not that he would be singled out for 

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 2 of 7
3

persecution based on a protected ground if returned to his home country. Sanchez 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 2004).

An applicant’s testimony, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain his burden 

of proof. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Conversely, an adverse credibility determination standing alone is sufficient to 

support a denial of asylum or withholding of removal when there is no other 

evidence of persecution. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. If, however, the applicant 

submits other evidence of persecution, the IJ must consider this evidence as well. 

Id.

The IJ, in evaluating credibility, must consider the totality of the 

circumstances, including: (1) the demeanor, candor, and responsiveness of the 

applicant; (2) the plausibility of the applicant’s account; (3) the consistency 

between the applicant’s written and oral statements; (4) the internal consistency of 

each statement; and (5) the consistency of the applicant’s statements with other 

record evidence, including country reports. Immigration and Nationality Act 

(“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, an adverse

credibility determination may be based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or 

falsehoods, regardless of whether they go to the heart of the applicant’s claim. Id.1

 

1

For purposes of determining eligibility for both asylum and withholding of removal, the 

IJ’s credibility finding is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). See INA § 241(b)(3)(C), 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C).

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 3 of 7
4

The IJ must give “specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility 

finding.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255 (quotation marks omitted). “Once an adverse 

credibility finding is made, the burden is on the applicant to show that the IJ’s 

credibility decision was not supported by ‘specific, cogent reasons’ or was not 

based on substantial evidence.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.

II. ANSARI’S CLAIMS

As an initial matter, to the extent Ansari challenges the denial of his request 

for CAT relief, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. Ansari 

did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief in his notice of appeal or his brief to 

the BIA. Thus, Ansari’s CAT claim is unexhausted. See INA § 242(d)(1), 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297-98, 1298-

99 n.19 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that this Court lacks jurisdiction over an 

unexhausted claim even though the BIA addressed the claim sua sponte). 

Accordingly, Ansari’s petition for review is dismissed as to his CAT claim. 

With respect to Ansari’s claims of asylum and withholding of removal, the 

IJ and the BIA gave specific, cogent reasons for discrediting him.

2 Specifically, 

the IJ and the BIA noted that Ansari’s testimony was inconsistent with his credible 

 

2

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s credibility determination, we review the decisions 

of both the BIA and the IJ as to this issue. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 

(11th Cir. 2010). We review factual findings, including credibility determinations, under the 

substantial evidence test. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286. In doing so, “we review the record evidence 

in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of 

that decision.” Id. We will overturn a credibility finding only if the record compels it. Id. at 

1287.

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 4 of 7
5

fear interview, asylum application, and some of the documents he submitted and 

that Ansari became confused about dates during his merits hearing. 

Further, these reasons are supported by substantial evidence. For example, 

during his credible fear interview, Ansari identified only one instance of harm,

despite being repeatedly pressed for other instances. In particular, Ansari 

described one attack, which occurred outside a bus terminal, in which members of 

the opposition party, the Awami League, robbed him while he was coming from 

the market. At the merits hearing, however, Ansari recounted two additional 

attacks. In one alleged attack, Ansari was campaigning for an upcoming election

when Awami members beat him, resulting in a back injury for which a village 

doctor prescribed medication. In the other alleged attack, Awami members forced 

entry into Ansari’s home, broke items inside the home, and threatened to burn 

down the home and kill Ansari if he did not stop working for the BNP. 

Despite the seriousness of these two alleged attacks, Ansari failed to 

mention either of them during his credible fear interview. Moreover, Ansari failed 

to include any of the three alleged attacks in his asylum application. Instead, 

Ansari’s asylum application stated merely that the Awami League “just threatened 

[him] because [he] was in B.N.P.” 

In addition, Ansari’s hearing testimony about his back injury was 

inconsistent with the “Injury Certificate” he submitted. The certificate states that 

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 5 of 7
6

Ansari suffered multiple bruises to his head and body, without specifically 

referring to a back injury. Ansari testified, however, that his only injury was pain 

in his back. According to the injury certificate, Ansari was treated for eight days, 

but Ansari testified that he went home after the attack and obtained pain 

medication from a village doctor. 

With regard to his BNP involvement, while Ansari testified that he was a 

leader in the BNP’s youth group, the BNP documents that Ansari submitted state

that he was a “joint secretary” in the Tangail district. One of the documents 

described Ansari’s duties, but does not mention the youth group. 

Finally, as the IJ and the BIA noted, during his testimony, Ansari confused 

the date of the election for which he was campaigning when he was attacked. 

Ansari first said the election occurred in December 2009, but later, when 

questioned by the IJ, said he had “made a mistake” and that the election was in 

December 2008. 

Ansari argues that he offered explanations for some of the inconsistencies, 

namely that he was nervous during his credible fear interview and had difficulty 

speaking English. The BIA rejected these explanations, however, because Ansari 

had a Bengali-English interpreter at both his credible fear interview and his merits 

hearing, and Ansari was given “ample opportunity to set forth details regarding the 

incidents which allegedly occurred in 2008.” The BIA was not required to accept 

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 6 of 7
7

Ansari’s explanations, and those explanations do not compel a conclusion that he 

was credible. See Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(concluding that the applicant’s tenable explanations would not compel a 

reasonable fact finder to overturn the adverse credibility finding). Furthermore, 

although there is no requirement that inconsistencies go to the heart of the 

applicant’s claim, Ansari’s role in the BNP and the mistreatment and injuries he 

suffered are material to his claims. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

In light of the adverse credibility finding, substantial evidence supports the 

finding that Ansari was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. 

Ansari’s claims rested primarily upon his discredited testimony, and the few 

documents he provided were at least somewhat inconsistent with that testimony. 

Furthermore, Ansari does not contend that the remaining evidence, without his 

testimony, compelled a conclusion that he was eligible for asylum or withholding 

of removal.

For all these reasons, Ansari’s petition for review is denied as to his claims 

of asylum and withholding of removal and dismissed as to his CAT claim.

DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

USCA11 Case: 15-13171 Date Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 7 of 7