17-3529 

Hysaj v. Barr 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A208 752 131

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 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 29th 4 day of October, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

9 MICHAEL H. PARK,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 EMANUEL HYSAJ, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-3529 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Esq., 

24 Brooklyn, NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 

28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 

29 Patricia E. Bruckner, 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 Emanuel Hysaj, a native and citizen of 

6 Albania, seeks review of an October 12, 2017 decision of the 

7 BIA affirming a December 5, 2016 decision of an Immigration 

8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Hysaj’s application for asylum, 

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Emanuel Hysaj, No. A 208 752 

11 131 (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 752 131 (Immig. 

12 Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ 

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

14 in this case. 

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 

17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 

18 agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its 

19 legal conclusions de novo. See Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 

20 251, 253 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 

21 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 

22 determination under a substantial evidence standard). 
3

1 Frivolous Finding 

2 “A person who makes an application for asylum determined 

3 to be ‘frivolous,’ or deliberately and materially false, is 

4 subject to a grave penalty: permanent ineligibility for most 

5 forms of relief under the immigration laws.” Mei Juan Zheng 

6 v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 176, 178 (2d Cir. 2008); see also 8 

7 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (“If the Attorney General determines that 

8 an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum 

9 and the alien has received the notice [of the consequences of 

10 filing a frivolous application], the alien shall be 

11 permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter, 

12 effective as of the date of a final determination on such 

13 application.”). Before being subject to this permanent bar, 

14 Hysaj was entitled to procedural safeguards: “(1) notice . . 

15 . of the consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) a 

16 specific finding . . . that [he] knowingly filed a frivolous 

17 application; (3) sufficient evidence in the record to support 

18 the finding that a material element of the asylum application 

19 was deliberately fabricated; and (4) . . . sufficient 

20 opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible 

21 aspects of the claim.” In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 155 
4

1 (BIA 2007). Hysaj disputes only that the third requirement 

2 was met. 

3 The record supports the agency’s conclusion that Hysaj 

4 deliberately fabricated a material part of his claim. 

5 Hysaj’s testimony was internally inconsistent regarding 

6 whether he was frightened by June 2015 threatening phone call 

7 or calls and whether as a result he took any steps to protect 

8 himself or left the country, and he omitted from his written 

9 statement and direct testimony that he left Albania for two 

10 weeks in the summer of 2015 to try to come to the United 

11 States. Although Hysaj argues that he never testified that 

12 he remained in Albania during the relevant period, the agency 

13 could reasonably expect that, when he was asked about his 

14 activities in July 2015, Hysaj would disclose that he left 

15 Albania for two weeks. See Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–79 

16 (“[I]n assessing the probative value of the omission of 

17 certain facts, an IJ should consider whether those facts are 

18 ones that a credible petitioner would reasonably have been 

19 expected to disclose under the relevant circumstances.”); see 

20 also In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 158 (“[P]roof that conduct 

21 was knowing or deliberate may be demonstrated by 

22 circumstantial evidence.”). Furthermore, Hysaj gave 
5

1 “dramatically different” accounts of what happened in June 

2 and July 2015. Cf. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 

3 Cir. 2005) (determining that a petitioner’s “dramatically 

4 different” accounts of an incident provides substantial 

5 evidence for adverse credibility determination). Hysaj 

6 changed his testimony from reporting that he was not 

7 frightened by the June 2015 threat or threats and took no 

8 steps to protect himself to stating that he was so frightened 

9 by the call or calls that he left Albania and tried to come 

10 to the United States. His admission that he fled Albania in 

11 June 2015 also contradicts his written statement—that he and 

12 his family concluded that he needed to leave for the United 

13 States after he was assaulted in November 2015. These 

14 conflicting versions of events support the agency’s 

15 conclusion that he fabricated his claim of political 

16 persecution. Cf. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. Given these 

17 contradictions, which implicated the harm he suffered and 

18 feared and the extent of his political activities, the agency 

19 did not err in finding that he fabricated a material aspect 

20 of his asylum claim. See In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 155. 

21 Adverse Credibility Determination 
6

1 The governing credibility standard under the REAL ID Act 

2 is as follows: 

3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 

4 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 

5 credibility determination on . . . the consistency 

6 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and 

7 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of 

8 each such statement, the consistency of such 

9 statements with other evidence of record . . . , and 

10 any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, 

11 . . . or any other relevant factor. 

12 

13 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 

14 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no 

15 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

16 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 

17 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial 

18 evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

19 determination. 

20 First, as discussed above, there were inconsistencies in 

21 Hysaj’s written and oral statements regarding whether he was 

22 frightened by June 2015 threatening phone call or calls and 

23 whether he took steps to protect himself or left the country 

24 as a result. The IJ could reasonably expect that Hysaj would 

25 disclose a previous attempt to escape persecution in his 

26 asylum application and that he would mention that attempt 
7

1 when asked about his activities during the period he was 

2 outside Albania. See Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–79. 

3 Second, additional findings bolster the adverse 

4 credibility determination. Hysaj concedes that his testimony 

5 was inconsistent regarding whether he reported the June 2015 

6 threat or threats to the police and whether Democratic Party 

7 leaders told him to contact the police. The agency was not 

8 required to credit his correction to conform with his 

9 application. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80 (“A petitioner must 

10 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 

11 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate 

12 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit 

13 his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

14 Furthermore, whether Hysaj contacted the police regarding the 

15 threats is significant because it implicates whether “the 

16 government is unable or unwilling” to control his alleged 

17 persecutors. See Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 

18 2015). The agency also reasonably relied on Hysaj’s omission 

19 from his direct testimony that he was threatened with a knife 

20 because he was asked twice about the problems he experienced 

21 and only generally stated in response that he “had many 

22 threats.” See Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 78–79. 
8

1 Given these inconsistencies and omissions, substantial 

2 evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

3 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 

4 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because Hysaj’s claims were all based 

5 on the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility 

6 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 

7 removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

8 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

10 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

11 stays VACATED. 

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

14 Clerk of Court