20-2727

Ali v. Garland

BIA

Bither, IJ

A088 015 332

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 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 15th 4 day of December, two thousand twenty5 two.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

9 MYRNA PÉREZ,

10 ALISON J. NATHAN,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 MOHAMMED NOOR ALI,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 20-2727

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 

25 New York, NY.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant

28 Attorney General; Anna E. Juarez, 
2

1 Senior Litigation Counsel; James 

2 A. Hurley, Attorney, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Mohammed Noor Ali, a native and citizen of

11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 20, 2020, decision of the 

12 BIA affirming an April 25, 2018, decision of an Immigration 

13 Judge (“IJ”) denying his claim of withholding of removal.1 

14 In re Mohammed Noor Ali, No. A 088 015 332 (B.I.A. July 20, 

15 2020), aff’g No. A 088 015 332 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 25, 

16 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

17 underlying facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

19 BIA, and because the BIA based its affirmance only on the 

20 IJ’s adverse credibility determination, our review is limited 

1 The BIA considered only withholding of removal because we 

previously remanded the case only as to withholding of removal, 

finding that we lacked jurisdiction to review Ali’s unexhausted 

challenges to the denial of asylum and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture. See Ali v. Holder, 595 F. App’x 64, 66–67 (2d 

Cir. 2015) (summary order). 
3

1 to that issue. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

2 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse 

3 credibility determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong 

4 Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat 

5 the agency’s findings of fact as conclusive “unless any 

6 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

7 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The IJ may, 

8 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances” base a 

9 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an applicant’s 

10 statements or between his statements and other evidence, 

11 “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 

12 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 

13 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also 8 U.S.C. §

14 1231(b)(3)(C) (incorporating § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), which 

15 governs asylum claims, into the standard for withholding of 

16 removal claims). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s adverse 

17 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 

18 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 

19 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 

20 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei 

21 Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports the 
4

1 adverse credibility determination. 

2 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies 

3 regarding Ali’s identity, his entry date, and the year of an 

4 alleged arrest. The record supports the agency’s finding 

5 that Ali failed to establish his identity because he presented 

6 three birth certificates, one with the name “Noor Ali Sumon,” 

7 and two with “Mohammed Noor Ali,” but he did not provide an 

8 authenticated birth certificate to resolve the issue, and he 

9 offered various contradictory explanations for the 

10 inconsistent documents. See Majidi v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 77, 

11 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a 

12 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 

13 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact14 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 

15 quotation marks omitted)).

16 The record also supports the agency’s finding of 

17 inconsistencies relating to Ali’s date of entry to the United 

18 States and the date of an arrest in Bangladesh. Ali admitted 

19 the allegation in the notice to appear that he entered in 

20 January 2004, but testified to entering the United States in 

21 April or December 2005. The agency reasonably relied on this 
5

1 inconsistency, which calls into question whether Ali was in 

2 Bangladesh at the time of the alleged incidents of 

3 persecution. For example, he testified that he was arrested 

4 in Bangladesh in May 2004. Ali did not resolve this 

5 inconsistency with corroborating evidence, either at his 

6 first hearing or on remand. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 

7 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to 

8 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 

9 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 

10 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 

11 been called into question.”); see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 

12 575 F.3d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that the applicant 

13 “bears the ultimate burden” to submit corroborating evidence 

14 “without prompting from the IJ”). Moreover, some of his 

15 written statements and corroborating letters inconsistently 

16 identified this arrest as occurring a year earlier, in May 

17 2003. 

18 Taken together, these inconsistencies provide 

19 substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility 

20 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166–67. 
6

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

6 Clerk of Court

7