18-141 

Hossain v. Barr 

BIA 

Ruehle, IJ 

A206 370 211

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, 

on the 21st 4 day of November, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 

9 MICHAEL H. PARK,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 SHAHADAT HOSSAIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 18-141 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard 

24 Park, NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Andrew N. 

28 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 

29 Counsel; Sunah Lee, Trial 

30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

31 Litigation, United States 

32 Department of Justice, Washington, 

33 DC. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

4 is DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Shahadat Hossain, a native and citizen of 

6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 27, 2017, decision of 

7 the BIA affirming an April 27, 2017, decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hossain, No. A 206 370 211 

11 (B.I.A. Dec. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 370 211 (Immig. Ct. 

12 Buffalo Apr. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 As an initial matter, Hossain’s argument that the agency 

15 lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his 

16 notice to appear did not include a hearing date or time is 

17 foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 

18 2019). Id. at 110–12. 

19 Turning to the adverse credibility determination, we have 

20 reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue 

21 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 

22 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 
3

1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 

2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 

3 credibility determination under a substantial evidence 

4 standard). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, 

5 and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 

6 credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 

7 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 

8 statements . . ., the internal consistency of each such 

9 statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with 

10 other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

11 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 

12 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 

13 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. 

14 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); accord 

15 Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports 

16 the agency’s determination that Hossain was not credible as 

17 to his claim that Awami League members assaulted and 

18 threatened to kill him on account of his membership in the 

19 Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 

20 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between 

21 Hossain’s testimony and his documentary evidence. Hossain 

22 repeatedly testified that Awami League members assaulted him 
4

1 at 8:00 p.m. as he returned from a religious holiday gathering 

2 in August 2013. He testified that he sustained serious 

3 injuries and was taken to a hospital, from which he was 

4 discharged without records, and then to another hospital 

5 where he remained for two days, receiving documentation of 

6 his injuries the day of discharge. He submitted what he 

7 claimed were original records of his treatment. 

8 However, at his hearing, when confronted with his own 

9 submission of records from the first hospital stating he was 

10 admitted at 6:00 p.m., two hours before the alleged assault, 

11 Hossain had no explanation other than that the record should 

12 have reflected an admission at 9:00 p.m. He also was unable 

13 to provide a clear explanation as to why another date more 

14 than a year after treatment appeared on these records. 

15 Hossain later testified that the document reflected the date 

16 it was notarized, before the doctor signed the records. See

17 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 

18 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 

19 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

20 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

21 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 

22 omitted)). To the extent that he first stated that he had 
5

1 no records from this hospital, his lack of familiarity with 

2 his own evidence further undermined his credibility. 

3 Given that these inconsistencies relate directly to the 

4 sole incident of past harm and undermine the reliability of 

5 the records, the totality of the circumstances supports the 

6 agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 

7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

8 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (holding that 

9 material inconsistency regarding basis of applicant’s asylum 

10 claim is substantial evidence for adverse credibility 

11 determination). That determination is dispositive of asylum, 

12 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 

13 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 

14 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

17 stays VACATED. 

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

20 Clerk of Court