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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

20th 4 day of September, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 TAREQ MAKSUD, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-2744 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Tareq Maksud, Pro Se, Woodside, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

26 Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. 

27 Scadron, Assistant Director; 

28 Richard Zanfardino, Trial Attorney, 

29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

30 United States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 

32 
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 is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Tareq Maksud, a native and citizen of 

6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 29, 2015 decision of the BIA 

7 affirming a December 18, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge 

8 (“IJ”) denying Maksud’s application for asylum, withholding of 

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

10 (“CAT”). In re Tareq Maksud, No. A059 851 987 (B.I.A. July 29, 

11 2015), aff’g No. A059 851 987 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18, 

12 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

13 facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 

15 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 

16 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 

17 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia 

18 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum 

19 applications that are governed by the REAL ID Act, like 

20 Maksud’s, the agency may base an adverse credibility 

21 determination on inconsistencies within and between the 

22 applicant’s statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The 

23 agency “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an 
3

1 adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of 

2 the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not 

3 credible.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Here, the totality of the 

5 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

6 determination: the IJ identified multiple significant 

7 inconsistencies and omissions in Maksud’s statements. 

8 The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies between 

9 Maksud’s asylum applications and airport interview. At the 

10 airport interview, Maksud stated that he came to the United 

11 States to obtain a business or student visa, and that he left 

12 Bangladesh because “the economy [wa]s not good.” When asked 

13 if he feared returning to Bangladesh, he said, “Yes,” and gave 

14 as a reason that “people who get support from the political party 

15 [are] after [him] for [his] money.” He explained that he would 

16 be harmed because those people know that he is in the United 

17 States, that he owns a construction company in Bangladesh, and 

18 that he has money. In contrast, he alleges in his asylum 

19 applications that he left because he was beaten, arrested, and 

20 detained in response to his political activities. The IJ 

21 reasonably rejected Maksud’s explanation for the 

22 inconsistencies—that he was not asked about past harm in the 

23 airport interview—because the record shows that the interviewer 
4

1 asked Maksud why he left Bangladesh and whether he feared 

2 returning. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 

3 2005) (holding that agency need not credit applicant’s 

4 explanation for inconsistencies unless proffered explanation 

5 would compel reasonable fact-finder to do so). 

6 The IJ also reasonably relied on three inconsistencies 

7 between Maksud’s original and amended asylum applications, 

8 which contain differing accounts of his encounters with the 

9 Bangladesh Awami League (“BAL”), the ruling political party and 

10 an opposition party to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party 

11 (“BNP”), with which Maksud was affiliated. First, the 

12 applications conflict as to Maksud’s experience at a 2009 

13 protest. Maksud’s original application reports that he was 

14 arrested, detained, and beaten over several days. His amended 

15 application, in contrast, describes being beaten and shot with 

16 rubber bullets at a protest, but omits mention of any arrest 

17 or detention. Second, the applications are also inconsistent 

18 regarding an alleged January 2010 arrest. Maksud’s original 

19 application states that he was arrested in his home after he 

20 left the hospital in January 2010 and was held for several weeks 

21 before being released on bond. But in his amended application, 

22 the January 2010 arrest took place at the BNP party office, and 

23 Maksud was detained and tortured for 22 hours before being 
5

1 released “with the help of an advocate,” making no mention of 

2 any bond. Third, the original application omits any mention 

3 of the two attacks on Maksud by the BAL described in the amended 

4 application. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (explaining 

5 that “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are, for these 

6 purposes, functionally equivalent”). Because the original 

7 application bore Maksud’s signature and he filed no complaint 

8 against his prior attorney, the IJ was not required to accept 

9 Maksud’s explanations that he did not sign that application and 

10 that any error was his attorney’s fault. See Majidi, 430 F.3d 

11 at 80. 

12 Finally, the IJ also reasonably pointed to Maksud’s history 

13 of attempting to gain status in the United States through other 

14 improper means as undercutting his credibility. Maksud 

15 conceded that he married a U.S. citizen solely to gain status 

16 in the United States and that the only purpose of his October 

17 2010 trip to the United States was to have his child born in 

18 the United States and thereby for the child to be a U.S. citizen. 

19 The IJ reasonably found that the circumstances of the previous 

20 marriage detract from Maksud’s credibility. See, e.g., Falae 

21 v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (sham marriage for 

22 purpose of obtaining citizenship can support adverse 

23 credibility finding). The IJ also reasonably found that 
6

1 Maksud’s voluntary return to Bangladesh after the birth of his 

2 child in the United States further undermined his credibility 

3 given his allegations that he had been persecuted in Bangladesh 

4 already. Maksud testified that he returned because “[a]t that 

5 time, the conditions were not so bad,” but the IJ reasonably 

6 rejected that explanation because, before leaving for the 

7 United States, Maksud allegedly had been shot by the police and 

8 hospitalized for 12 days—grounds he now cites in support of his 

9 asylum application. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

10 Given these multiple inconsistencies and significant 

11 omissions, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

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

13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The agency’s adverse credibility 

14 determination is dispositive of Maksud’s application for 

15 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. 

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

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

22 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

23 
7

1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

2 34.1(b). 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk