15-2744 Maksud v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A059 851 987 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **20 th**  **day of September, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **TAREQ MAKSUD,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-2744** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Tareq Maksud, Pro Se, Woodside, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. 26 Scadron, Assistant Director; 27 Richard Zanfardino, Trial Attorney, 28 Office of Immigration Litigation, 29 United States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 31 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Tareq Maksud, a native and citizen of 5 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 29, 2015 decision of the BIA 6 affirming a December 18, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) denying Maksud’s application for asylum, withholding of 8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Tareq Maksud, No. A059 851 987 (B.I.A. July 29, 10 2015), aff’g No. A059 851 987 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18, 11 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 12 facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 14

IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 15 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 16 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia 17 Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum 18 applications that are governed by the REAL ID Act, like 19 Maksud’s, the agency may base an adverse credibility 20 determination on inconsistencies within and between the 21 applicant’s statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The 22 agency “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an 233 adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of 1 the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not 2 credible.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Here, the totality of the 4 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 5 determination: the IJ identified multiple significant 6 inconsistencies and omissions in Maksud’s statements. 7 The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies between 8 Maksud’s asylum applications and airport interview. At the 9 airport interview, Maksud stated that he came to the United 10 States to obtain a business or student visa, and that he left 11 Bangladesh because “the economy [wa]s not good.” When asked 12 if he feared returning to Bangladesh, he said, “Yes,” and gave 13

as a reason that “people who get support from the political party 14 [are] after [him] for [his] money.” He explained that he would 15 be harmed because those people know that he is in the United 16 States, that he owns a construction company in Bangladesh, and 17 that he has money. In contrast, he alleges in his asylum 18 applications that he left because he was beaten, arrested, and 19 detained in response to his political activities. The IJ 20 reasonably rejected Maksud’s explanation for the 21 inconsistencies—that he was not asked about past harm in the 22 airport interview—because the record shows that the interviewer 234 asked Maksud why he left Bangladesh and whether he feared 1 returning. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2 2005) (holding that agency need not credit applicant’s 3 explanation for inconsistencies unless proffered explanation 4 would compel reasonable fact-finder to do so). 5 The IJ also reasonably relied on three inconsistencies 6 between Maksud’s original and amended asylum applications, 7 which contain differing accounts of his encounters with the 8 Bangladesh Awami League (“BAL”), the ruling political party and 9 an opposition party to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party 10 (“BNP”), with which Maksud was affiliated. First, the 11 applications conflict as to Maksud’s experience at a 2009 12 protest. Maksud’s original application reports that he was 13 arrested, detained, and beaten over several days. His amended 14 application, in contrast, describes being beaten and shot with 15 rubber bullets at a protest, but omits mention of any arrest 16 or detention. Second, the applications are also inconsistent 17 regarding an alleged January 2010 arrest. Maksud’s original 18 application states that he was arrested in his home after he 19 left the hospital in January 2010 and was held for several weeks 20 before being released on bond. But in his amended application, 21 the January 2010 arrest took place at the BNP party office, and 22 Maksud was detained and tortured for 22 hours before being 235 released “with the help of an advocate,” making no mention of 1 any bond. Third, the original application omits any mention 2 of the two attacks on Maksud by the BAL described in the amended 3 application. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (explaining 4 that “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are, for these 5 purposes, functionally equivalent”). Because the original 6 application bore Maksud’s signature and he filed no complaint 7 against his prior attorney, the IJ was not required to accept 8 Maksud’s explanations that he did not sign that application and 9 that any error was his attorney’s fault. See Majidi , 430 F.3d 10

at 80. 11 Finally, the IJ also reasonably pointed to Maksud’s history 12 of attempting to gain status in the United States through other 13 improper means as undercutting his credibility. Maksud 14 conceded that he married a U.S. citizen solely to gain status 15 in the United States and that the only purpose of his October 16 2010 trip to the United States was to have his child born in 17 the United States and thereby for the child to be a U.S. citizen. 18 The IJ reasonably found that the circumstances of the previous 19 marriage detract from Maksud’s credibility. See, e.g. , Falae 20

v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (sham marriage for 21 purpose of obtaining citizenship can support adverse 22 credibility finding). The IJ also reasonably found that 236 Maksud’s voluntary return to Bangladesh after the birth of his 1 child in the United States further undermined his credibility 2 given his allegations that he had been persecuted in Bangladesh 3 already. Maksud testified that he returned because “[a]t that 4 time, the conditions were not so bad,” but the IJ reasonably 5 rejected that explanation because, before leaving for the 6 United States, Maksud allegedly had been shot by the police and 7 hospitalized for 12 days—grounds he now cites in support of his 8 asylum application. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 9 Given these multiple inconsistencies and significant 10 omissions, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 11 agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The agency’s adverse credibility 13 determination is dispositive of Maksud’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. 15

Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 18 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 19 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 20 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 21 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 22

237 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 1 34.1(b). 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4