[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-12580

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MANSUR AHMED, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A201-341-503

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 1 of 20
2 Opinion of the Court 20-12580

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mansur Ahmed petitions for review of a final order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s 

denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA held that the IJ 

did not err in denying Mr. Ahmed’s asylum application based on an

adverse credibility determination. After review of the parties’ 

briefs and the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusions and deny Mr. Ahmed’s petition.1

I 

A 

Mr. Ahmed is a native and citizen of Bangladesh. He entered 

the United States without valid immigration documents on or 

about September 7, 2018. The Department of Homeland Security 

issued Mr. Ahmed a notice to appear, charging that he was removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled;

and under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as 

1 Mr. Ahmed does not challenge the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s ruling 

denying him relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and 

Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Thus, he has 

abandoned that claim. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 

n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 2 of 20
20-12580 Opinion of the Court 3

a foreign national not in possession of a valid entry document at 

the time of admission.

In March of 2019, Mr. Ahmed filed an application for asylum 

and withholding of removal under the INA based on his political 

opinion. In his application, Mr. Ahmed asserted that he had been 

attacked and threatened by members of the Awami League, the 

current ruling party in Bangladesh, because he supported and 

worked for the Liberal Democratic Party (the “LDP”). He further 

stated that the police were unwilling and unable to protect him. 

Mr. Ahmed feared returning to Bangladesh because he would be 

targeted, threatened, attacked, tortured, and possibly murdered by 

members of the Awami League for his continued support of the 

LDP.2 

Mr. Ahmed submitted several documents in support of his 

application. These included a news article, an affidavit from his 

mother, letters from local political leaders, and medical records.

B 

The IJ held two evidentiary hearings on the merits of Mr. 

Ahmed’s asylum petition. Mr. Ahmed was the sole witness, and

testified to the following.

In Bangladesh, he was a member of the LDP. As a member, 

he participated in rallies, arranged meetings, and hung posters. 

2 Mr. Ahmed also sought withholding of removal under the CAT, but as noted, 

he does not challenge that portion of the IJ’s ruling.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 3 of 20
4 Opinion of the Court 20-12580

From June to July of 2017, he temporarily served as the vice-president for a committee within the LDP. He was attacked on at least 

three occasions by Awami League members. 

The first incident took place on January 3, 2015. Forty members of the Awami League and twenty police officers approached 

him and other LDP members at a market and told them to stop 

protesting the Awami League. The Awami League members attacked and beat him and other LDP members with a boat paddle, 

a sharp weapon, and a hockey stick. Mr. Ahmed sustained injuries 

to his back and feet. Because of this attack, he was hospitalized for 

three days where doctors dressed his wounds with ointment and 

bandaged his feet and back. 

The second incident occurred on June 10, 2017. Awami 

League members came to Mr. Ahmed’s house and threatened him 

if he did not join the Awami League. They “touched [him] and . . 

. physically assaulted [him].” A.R. at 166. If he refused to join, they 

said they would kill him like they had killed his father.3

The third incident was in January of 2018. Five Awami 

League members confronted Mr. Ahmed and other LDP members 

as they were preparing for an LDP assembly and told them that 

they could not hold their meeting. When Mr. Ahmed was returning home after the meeting, he was attacked by ten Awami League 

members, some of whom were wielding a knife and a hockey stick. 

3 Mr. Ahmed’s father, a former leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, died 

in 2007 following an attack by members of the Awami League.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 4 of 20
20-12580 Opinion of the Court 5

He sustained injuries to two of his fingers and both his legs. Mr. 

Ahmed was hospitalized for 14 days, and his wounds were cleaned, 

bandaged, and otherwise treated. After this attack, Mr. Ahmed 

stated that he hid at home while he recovered, until leaving Bangladesh in March of 2018.

On cross-examination, the government asked Mr. Ahmed 

about a news article he had submitted in support of his petition,

which discussed the January of 2018 attack. The article stated that 

Mr. Ahmed was a vice-president of the LDP. He responded that 

he had been an interim vice-president following the dissolution of 

an LDP committee for a one-month period in 2017, but that he was 

not serving as vice-president at the time the article was written. 

The government also questioned Mr. Ahmed about a statement in 

the article that he was threatened over the phone while in the hospital following the attack. He testified that the statement in the 

news article was incorrect because he had not been threatened over 

the phone. 

The government further cross-examined Mr. Ahmed about 

why his medical records did not mention either injuries to his feet 

after the 2015 attack or stitches on his finger following the 2018 attack. Mr. Ahmed responded that he did not know why the records 

did not include the injuries to his feet and that the stitches should 

have been included on his discharge letter. The government also 

asked Mr. Ahmed why his prior written statement and his mother’s 

affidavit did not state that he had been beaten during the 2017 incident. Mr. Ahmed replied that he did not know why his mother had 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 5 of 20
6 Opinion of the Court 20-12580

not mentioned the attack, but that she was sick due to the various 

attacks on their home by the Awami League. He did not explain 

why he had not previously mentioned the physical attack in 2017.

The IJ issued a written decision denying Mr. Ahmed’s application for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, finding that his testimony was “generally . . . inconsistent, implausible, 

and at times evasive.” A.R. at 116. The IJ further found that “[Mr. 

Ahmed’s] testimonial account either contradicted or was an embellishment of the narrative and basis for asylum set forth in the written narrative.” Id. More particularly, the IJ found that, while the 

newspaper article Mr. Ahmed submitted indicated that he was a 

vice-president for the local LDP, his affidavit, his mother’s affidavit, 

and the letter from the LDP official made no mention of Mr. Ahmed holding a position or office in the LDP. Though Mr. Ahmed 

explained that he served as a vice-president for a one-month period

in 2017, the IJ concluded that Mr. Ahmed’s testimony failed to clarify his role in the LDP. The IJ also found that Mr. Ahmed failed to 

provide rational explanations for the discrepancies in his medical 

records. Finally, the IJ noted that Mr. Ahmed provided no evidence 

of broken bones, severe injuries, disability, or other forms of lasting 

physical or mental harm. Based on that and the Department of 

State report on country conditions, the IJ concluded that Bangladesh did not have “so serious a problem to constitute a pattern or 

practice of ‘persecution’ that is systematic, pervasive, or organized.” Id. at 120.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 6 of 20
20-12580 Opinion of the Court 7

The BIA dismissed Mr. Ahmed’s appeal, adopting the IJ’s 

findings and conclusions. The order stated that “[t]he inconsistencies regarding [Mr. Ahmed’s] role in the LDP, his injuries, and medical treatment, coupled with the [IJ’s] demeanor observation, constitute significant evidence of a lack of credibility in [Mr. Ahmed’s] 

asylum claim.” Id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Mr. Ahmed timely filed this petition.

II 

We review the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that 

the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion.

See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010).

Here, the BIA did not make any independent findings or reach any 

independent conclusions. It instead agreed with the IJ’s findings, 

stating that his reasons were supported by the record. As such, we 

“review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006).

We review credibility determinations under the substantial

evidence test. Id. at 1230–31. Under this deferential test, we affirm 

the BIA’s decision if it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and 

probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Adefemi 

v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will reverse the IJ’s credibility findings “only if the evidence compels a reasonable fact finder 

to find otherwise.” Chen, 463 F.3d at 1230–31 (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 7 of 20
8 Opinion of the Court 20-12580

A credibility determination may be based on the totality of 

the circumstances, including: (1) “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant;” (2) the plausibility of the applicant’s 

account; (3) the consistency of the applicant’s statements with 

other record evidence; and (4) “any inaccuracies or falsehoods in 

such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or 

any other relevant factor.” INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). When the IJ makes an adverse credibility finding, he must offer specific, cogent reasons for the finding. See 

Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231. The burden then shifts to the applicant to 

demonstrate that the decision was not supported by such specific,

cogent reasons or substantial evidence. See id. A tenable explanation for any inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony, however,

may still not compel reversal of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1233.

We have explained, based on the language of the statute, 

that the immateriality of the inconsistencies the IJ identifies in support of his adverse credibility determination does not compel reversal. See, e.g., Chen, 463 F.3d at 1233 (stating that based on the 

language of § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), it did not matter for purposes of 

reversal that the inconsistencies and discrepancies noted by the IJ 

were “trivial” and “irrelevant to the dispositive issues”). Nevertheless, the inconsistencies relied on by the IJ cannot be “wholly immaterial.” Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th 

Cir. 2009) (explaining that the “identified inconsistencies”—the 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 8 of 20
20-12580 Opinion of the Court 9

petitioner’s interchanging of the words “car” and “truck”—“were

not sufficient to support a finding of lack of credibility because they 

were not inconsistencies at all” but merely a “difference in terminology” and “wholly immaterial” to the asylum petition).

Here, the IJ’s finding that Mr. Ahmed was not credible based 

on the inconsistencies between his testimony and the record evidence is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ identified several, specific inconsistencies within Mr. Ahmed’s testimony and between his testimony and the record evidence. For example, the IJ 

detailed that Mr. Ahmed embellished his testimony by testifying to 

details that otherwise did not appear in any documentation submitted in support of his application. The IJ also noted specific inconsistencies concerning Mr. Ahmed’s medical records and regarding 

his alleged role in the LDP. “[W]hile [Mr. Ahmed’s] explanations 

of the [inconsistencies are] tenable, we cannot say, especially given 

the relative lack of corroborating evidence, that these explanations 

would compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse the IJ’s credibility 

determination.” Id.

Additionally, the IJ’s identified inconsistencies are not 

wholly immaterial. See Kueviakoe, 567 F.3d at 1305. The discrepancies identified by the IJ were not a mere difference of word 

choice as in Kueviakoe, and Mr. Ahmed did not attempt to explain 

any of them as such. See id. Instead, Mr. Ahmed testified that he 

did not know why the medical records did not mention injuries to 

his feet or any stitches, that he did not know why the newspaper 

article referred to him as a vice-president, and that his mother’s 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 9 of 20
10 Opinion of the Court 20-12580

affidavit was incomplete because she was sick. These inconsistencies are not “wholly immaterial.”

Our dissenting colleague states that the identified inconsistencies do not support an adverse credibility determination because 

they bolster Mr. Ahmed’s credibility. See Dissenting Op. at 9. 

Were we reviewing the credibility determination de novo, we may 

well agree. The relevant statute is clear, however, that the adverse 

credibility determination may be based on several factors, including the “responsiveness of the applicant” and “the consistency of 

the applicant’s statements with other record evidence.” 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Given this statutory language, then, the inconsistences noted by the IJ are probative of Mr. Ahmed’s credibility. 

Similarly, it does not matter that the inconsistencies may have been

“diminshment[s]” or “bolster[ed]” his credibility, Dissenting Op. at 

6, 9, because it is indisputable that they were inconsistences. See 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Although the administrative record may support a different outcome, that is not the standard we are required 

to apply. See Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027 (“[T]he mere fact that the 

record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify 

a reversal of the administrative findings.”).

Because the IJ offered specific, cogent reasons to support his 

credibility determination, the burden shifted to Mr. Ahmed to 

demonstrate error. In his petition, Mr. Ahmed argues that he explained the inconsistencies in the news article and the IJ’s findings 

as to the medical records were incorrect. This, however, is insufficient to disturb the adverse credibility finding. We have previously 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 10 of 20
20-12580 Opinion of the Court 11

found substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility determination where the applicant’s testimony “included at least one internal inconsistency” and “one omission,” and the applicant did not 

provide corroborating evidence that would have rebutted these inconsistencies and omissions. See Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 

1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010). Other than his own testimony, which 

the IJ found not credible, Mr. Ahmed did not provide any evidence 

to corroborate his account in rebuttal to the identified inconsistencies. Indeed, his own testimony at times failed to explain discrepancies in his case. Thus, Mr. Ahmed failed to meet his burden.

III 

The IJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial 

evidence, and this record does not compel us to reverse. We therefore deny Mr. Ahmed’s petition.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 11 of 20
20-12580 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 1

ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, Dissenting:

The majority denies Mansur Ahmed’s petition because it 

finds that the record does not compel reversal of the Immigration 

Judge’s (“IJ”) credibility finding. It arrives at this result by applying 

the deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review to the IJ’s 

factual finding that Ahmed was not credible. While I understand 

the deference we must give to the IJ on these matters, I respectfully 

dissent because, in my view, the record as a whole demonstrates 

that there were not “specific, cogent reasons” for the adverse credibility determination. Forgue v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 

1287 (11th Cir. 2005). I would grant Ahmed’s petition and remand 

accordingly.

We review factual findings, like the credibility determination here, under the substantial-evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 440 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2006). Our review is deferential, requiring us to affirm the agency’s decision if it is supported by 

“reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 

1351 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). We have explained that findings of fact in this context may be reversed only if 

the record compels a different result. Id.

The IJ denied Ahmed’s application after finding he was not 

credible because the IJ said Ahmed “testified in an inconsistent, implausible, and at times evasive manner,” and his “testimonial account either contradicted or was an embellishment of the narrative 

and basis for asylum set forth in the written narrative he provided.” 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 12 of 20
2 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 20-12580

As support for these conclusions, the IJ cited some differences between Ahmed’s testimony and the documentary evidence he provided.

The first set of supposed inconsistencies the IJ identified 

went to Ahmed’s role in the LDP. In his affidavit and testimony, 

Ahmed claimed he was a “general worker” and a “member” of the 

LDP, while a newspaper article he submitted referred to him as a 

“local leader” and the “vice president” of the “Chatkhil LDP upazila 

unit.” When asked about this discrepancy on cross examination, 

Ahmed explained that he held the role as vice president for a particular committee on an interim basis from June 2017 to July 2017. 

The second set of ostensible inconsistencies the IJ identified 

appears in Ahmed’s testimony concerning the injuries he suffered 

during the attacks by his persecutors. The IJ first noted that Ahmed 

testified his feet were treated for wounds he received in the 2015 

attack. But when asked about these wounds, Ahmed was unable 

to explain “why there was no injury to his feet noted on the medical 

letter.” 

Last, the IJ found an “inconsistency” between a letter Ahmed’s mother wrote and a physician’s letter dated January 30, 

2018.1 Ahmed’s mother’s letter said that her son was “injured heavily” by Awami League supporters on January 30, 2018. According 

1 Because there is no such letter dated January 30, 2018, I assume that the IJ 

was actually discussing a letter dated February 12, 2018, that contains this information.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 13 of 20
20-12580 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 3

to the IJ, the physician’s letter contradicted Ahmed’s mother’s 

claim because it indicated that Ahmed was “‘brought in for treatment’ for cuts on his hands, legs, and shoulders, and for bruises and 

swelling,” yet the only treatment reported during this “two-week 

admission” was cleaning of Ahmed’s wounds and administering of 

pain medicine.

The Majority Opinion upholds the BIA’s decision upholding 

the IJ’s determination that Ahmed was not credible. It does so in 

large part because the relevant statute provides that “a trier of fact 

may base a credibility determination on ... any inaccuracies or 

falsehoods in [an applicant’s statements], without regard to 

whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the 

heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

To be sure, the statute gives the trier of fact wide latitude, 

but that latitude is not boundless. The statute also requires the trier 

of fact to consider the totality of the circumstances and relevant 

facts. Indeed, it provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier 

of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, 

the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements 

(whenever made and whether or not 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 14 of 20
4 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 20-12580

under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements

were made), the internal consistency of 

each such statement, the consistency of 

such statements with other evidence of 

record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 

the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). And, after considering the totality of the circumstances, the IJ must support her adverse credibility determination with “specific, cogent reasons.” 

Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. So, while “inaccuracies and falsehoods” 

don’t have to be material to the basis for the application to support 

an adverse credibility determination, they still have to be considered in context and they still must make sense as reasons to disbelieve the applicant.

Taking each of the IJ’s offered “inconsistencies” in turn reveals that, when considered within the totality of the circumstances, they cannot be used to provide the requisite specific, cogent reasons for an adverse credibility determination.

Before I explain why, I note that we must remember that 

Ahmed seeks asylum on the basis that he has been persecuted for 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 15 of 20
20-12580 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 5

his political opinion—that is, his support of the LDP. On this record, regardless of anything else, it is clear that, among other things, 

Ahmed has been injured by the Awami League on two distinct occasions because of his support of the LDP. And those two incidents 

have resulted in serious enough injuries that he has landed in the 

hospital for three days and fourteen days, respectively.

With that background in mind, I consider the first purported 

discrepancy between Ahmed’s claim he was a “member” of the 

LDP and the newspaper article’s report that he was a “vice president.” Even if we set aside the reality that newspaper articles are 

no more inherently reliable than an individual’s unsworn testimony—and that, if anything, they may be less reliable because, by 

design, they rely on hearsay (and often double hearsay)—the IJ’s 

reliance on the discrepancy here is not cogent. 

The IJ did not address Ahmed’s explanation in his decision, 

much less explain whether, or why, he found that Ahmed’s explanation was “inconsistent, implausible, [or] evasive.” Nor did he explain how he could have found Ahmed’s testimony on this point 

“contradicted or . . . an embellishment of the narrative and basis set 

forth in his written asylum application.” 

In the course of seeking asylum for persecution based on his 

political opinion, Ahmed testified that he was an active member of 

the LDP—a political party. This testimony came after he had submitted an article that referred to him as the vice president of a unit 

within the LDP. If Ahmed were going to lie about his role in the 

LDP, it would make no sense for Ahmed to do so by downplaying 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 16 of 20
6 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 20-12580

it when the basis of his claim to relief is that he was attacked because of his political opinion. If anything, a leadership role would 

strengthen his claim. But rather than claiming to be a vice president because he served as the vice president of a committee on only 

an interim basis for only a month in 2017, Ahmed said that he was 

a member. A newspaper article said otherwise, and for this, in part 

at least, the IJ deemed Ahmed a liar. Embellishment—which is the 

word the IJ used to describe Ahmed’s testimony—implies enhancement. But the “lie” the IJ attributed to Ahmed here would have 

been diminishment. It can hardly be considered “cogent” to say 

that Ahmed must have been lying when he diminished his chances 

at getting relief.

Next, I turn to the lack of reference to Ahmed’s foot wounds 

in the medical letter. This medical letter refers to Ahmed’s hospitalization in 2015 after he asserts he was attacked by the Awami 

League. I acknowledge that the medical letter does not include a 

reference to the wounds to Ahmed’s feet. But that is meaningless 

when considered in light of what was in the medical letter. That 

is, it is meaningless when considered in context, or in the “totality 

of the circumstances.” The letter explained, “The patient described 

that he [was] assaulted by opposite political party and get injury to 

head and back with bruising all over his body.” Then, the letter 

said Ahmed’s “shirt was torn in different areas and torn areas were 

blood-mixed....” The letter characterized the injuries as consisting 

of “complex” cuts with a “sharp knife” to his back and leg, as well 

as injuries from “blunt” weapons to his head, arms, face, neck, and 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 17 of 20
20-12580 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 7

abdomen. It also notes that Ahmed was treated in the “Surgery” 

Department. And after a three-day stay in the hospital so the Surgery Department of the hospital could tend to his wounds, Ahmed 

was released with two different antibiotics and pain medications 

and instructed to “[s]tay 7 days in full bed rest.”

The IJ said there was “no mention of suturing or bandaging 

that one would expect,” and he further stated that any reference to 

medical treatment was “conspicuously absent.” But Ahmed can’t 

control how the hospital provides its records. And the IJ never explained why one might expect to see mention of suturing or bandaging when the records don’t say anything at all about the treatment that Ahmed received. Nor did the IJ explain why the absence 

of any reference to treatment was significant when the IJ didn’t 

question the authenticity of the records. 

When we consider the context, then, that the report does 

not specifically contain a reference to bandaging Ahmed’s feet or 

suturing his wounds tells us nothing. Again, the records indicate 

that Ahmed arrived at the hospital with injuries all over his body, 

stayed there three days, and was discharged with a host of prescriptions and instructions to spend seven days on full bed rest. The 

letter states not one single word about treatment the hospital administered. But based on the totality of the circumstances, it defies 

logic to suggest that the hospital would have noted all these injuries, kept Ahmed there for three days in the “Surgery” Department, 

but at no point bandaged or sutured the “complex” “sharp knife” 

wounds Ahmed was prescribed antibiotics for upon his discharge. 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 18 of 20
8 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 20-12580

One wonders what goes on in this hospital’s Surgery Department 

if not surgery. In sum, given the totality of the circumstances, it 

isn’t “cogent” to find that Ahmed is not credible based on the absence of a specific reference to Ahmed’s foot wounds in the medical 

letter relating to Ahmed’s 2015 hospitalization.

Last, I consider the purported discrepancy between Ahmed’s mother’s statement that Ahmed was “heavily” injured and 

the physician’s letter pertaining to Ahmed’s 2018 hospitalization, 

which Ahmed asserts occurred after he was attacked by the Awami 

League. The letter from the physician consists of six short sentences in its entirety (and one says only “If you have any questions 

about this particular patient or require further information please 

feel free to contact me.”), so it provides little detail. But the information it does give actually corroborates Ahmed’s mother’s statement that Ahmed was seriously injured in the January confrontation with the Awami League. The letter states that Ahmed was 

brought in on January 30, 2018, which is consistent with Ahmed’s 

testimony that he went to the hospital after being attacked that day. 

It is also consistent with the reports that the Awami Party attacked 

members of the LDP that day. In addition, the letter notes that 

Ahmed had cuts on his hands, legs, and shoulders, as well as bruises 

and swelling, all of which is consistent with his testimony that he 

was brutally attacked by a group of individuals that day, some of 

whom were armed with hockey sticks or knives. Significantly, the 

letter also states that Ahmed spent two weeks in the hospital, 

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 19 of 20
20-12580 ROSENBAUM, J., Dissenting 9

which is consistent with his testimony that he spent two weeks in 

a hospital.

Left with having to explain away how a two-week hospital 

stay did not provide corroboration of Ahmed’s and his mother’s 

statements, the IJ opined that the length of a hospital stay does not 

necessarily establish the severity of the patient’s injuries. But even 

assuming that a hospital would keep a patient for two weeks because of cuts, bruises and swelling that weren’t serious and didn’t 

require medical attention for that whole period—a significant leap 

of faith—spending two weeks in a hospital certainly doesn’t provide any basis for a trier of fact to conclude that an individual’s injuries were not severe. Again, this supposed discrepancy really isn’t 

a discrepancy when considered in the totality of the circumstances. 

Ultimately, the IJ’s stated reasons for finding Ahmed not to 

be credible are not cogent when viewed in light of the totality of 

the circumstances and the entire record. On the contrary, the documentary evidence the IJ relied on actually bolsters Ahmed’s credibility on his claims that, because of his political beliefs, he was 

beaten and severely injured on multiple occasions. In short, when 

we look at the totality of the circumstances, there are no specific, 

cogent reasons to conclude that the supposed inconsistencies in the 

record support an adverse credibility determination. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

USCA11 Case: 20-12580 Date Filed: 01/28/2022 Page: 20 of 20