20

- 2727 Ali v. Garland BIA Bither
, IJ A 088 015 332 

### 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.**

**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thu**  **rgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 15**  **th da**  **y of December**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**** 4 **two.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,** 8 **MYRNA PÉREZ,** 9 **ALISON J. NATHAN,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **MOHAMMED NOOR ALI ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 20** 

**- 2727**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Khagendra Gharti

- Chhetry, Esq. , 24 New York , NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Anna E. Juarez , 282 Senior Litigation Counsel ; James 1 A. Hurley , Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D C. 5

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Mohammed Noor Ali , a native and citizen of 10

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

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

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

. 1 13

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

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

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

underlying facts and procedural history. 17

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

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

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

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 Aga inst Torture. See Ali v. Holder , 595 F. App’x 64, 66

– 67 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order).3 to that issue

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

426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 200 5). We review adverse 2

credibility determinations for substantial evidence , s ee Hong 3

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

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

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 6

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

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

credibility finding on i nconsistencies in an applicant’s 9

statements or between his statements and other evidence, 10

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

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

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

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

governs asylum claims, into the standard for withholding of 15

removal claims )

. “We defer

. . . to an IJ’s adverse 16

credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 17

circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder 18

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

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

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports the 214 adverse credibility determination. 1

The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies 2

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

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

that Ali failed to establish his identity because he presented 5

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

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

authenticated b i rth certificate to resolve the issue, and he 8

offered various contradictory explanations for the 9

inconsistent documents

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

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

plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 12

secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

13

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” ( internal 14

quotation marks omitted) ). 15

The record also supports the agency’s finding of 16

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

States and the date of an arrest in Bangladesh

. Ali admitted 18

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

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

April or December 2005 . The agency reasonably relied on this 215 inconsistency , which calls into question whether Ali was in 1

Bangla desh at the time of the alleged incidents of 2

persecution

. For example, he testified that he was arrested 3

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

inconsistency with corroborating evidence, either at his 5

first hearing or on remand. S ee Biao Ya ng v. Gonzales , 496 6

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

corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 8

because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 9

applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 10

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

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

“bears the ultimate burden” to submit corroborating evidence 13

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

written statements and corroborating letters inconsistently 15

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

2003. 17

Taken together, these inconsistencies provide 18

s ubstantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility 19

determination. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166

– 67

. 206 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6 7