19-3704

Zhunusov v. Garland

BIA

Montante, IJ

A215 671 266

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.

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

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th

day of May, two thousand twenty-one.

PRESENT:

DENNIS JACOBS,

REENA RAGGI,

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

BAKTIIAR ZHUNUSOV,

Petitioner,

v. 19-3704

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: JILLIAN E. NOWAK, ESQ. (Karen MurtaghMonks, Executive Director, on the 

brief) for Prisoners’ Legal Services 

of New York, Buffalo, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: JONATHAN ROBBINS, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, (Anthony P. Nicastro, 

Assistant Director, on the brief) 

for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Civil Division,
2

Office of Immigration Litigation, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 

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

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner Baktiiar Zhunusov, a native of Kyrgyzstan and 

citizen of Russia, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Baktiiar Zhunusov, No. A215 671 

266 (B.I.A. Oct. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A 215 671 266 (Immigr. Ct. 

Batavia Apr. 23, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

the underlying facts and procedural history.1

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and 

reach only the grounds that the BIA relied on in sustaining the 

1 The government argues that Zhunusov’s petition is now moot 

because of his removal and his failure to maintain contact with 

his counsel during the intervening 18 months. Resp’t Ltr. Br. 

at 5-6. A petitioner’s removal ordinarily does not deprive the 

Court of jurisdiction to consider a petition for review. See 

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 424 (2009); Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 

F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2004). Zhunusov’s counsel has informed 

the Court that Zhunusov authorized counsel to pursue the present 

petition for review, and the government conceded at oral 

argument that, if Zhunusov’s petition is granted, it would be 

obligated to attempt to facilitate his return to the United 

States. Accordingly, we conclude that Zhunusov’s petition for 

review is not moot. We therefore consider it on the merits. 
3

IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 

standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 

Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for 

substantial evidence). In relevant part, the Immigration and 

Naturalization Act provides 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 . . . , the consistency between the 

applicant’s . . . written and oral statements (whenever 

made and whether or not under oath, and considering the 

circumstances under which the statements were made), the 

internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 

consistency of such statements with other evidence of 

record . . . 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). Our precedent teaches that “[w]e

[will] defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, 

from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 

reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); 

accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. On such review, we conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination.

We defer to the agency’s finding that Zhunusov’s evasive 
4

demeanor undermined his credibility. The IJ was “in the best 

position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the witness’s 

testimony suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be 

attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty understanding 

the question.” Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 

113 (2d Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

Moreover, the record supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

finding. As the BIA noted, the IJ repeatedly instructed Zhunusov 

to answer questions directly, reflective of an assessment that 

Zhunusov was being evasive. 

Zhunusov argues that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding.

He observes that the IJ made only a general finding that Zhunusov 

was evasive. Although the BIA is not authorized to make findings 

of fact, it reviews the IJ’s findings for clear error. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3). Here, the IJ found that Zhunusov was 

evasive, and the BIA did not fact-find on its own. Rather, it 

merely determined that there was no clear error in the IJ’s finding

that Zhunusov was evasive by reviewing the hearing record and 

noting where the IJ called attention to Zhunusov’s relevant 

conduct. 

In making its adverse credibility finding, the agency also 

properly considered inconsistencies in Zhunusov’s submissions. It 

pointed out that during his border and credible fear interviews,
5

Zhunusov failed to mention the threats that he later said prompted 

him to leave Kyrgyzstan in 2010 and then to leave Russia in 2018.2

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166–

67 & n.3 (in credibility determinations, allowing reliance on 

omissions). Zhunusov testified that he left Kyrgyzstan in 2010 

after his political work led to him receiving telephonic threats 

from “the mafia” three to four times over an unspecified period.

Special App’x 3 (B.I.A. Decision). He also testified that his 

political work led to death threats against him in the two weeks 

preceding his departure from Russia. But, during his border 

interview, Zhunusov stated that he was seeking “political asylum” 

only because he experienced “racial discrimination” in Russia. 

Further, although Zhunusov asserted during his credible fear 

interview, which was conducted through a Russian interpreter, that 

he left Kyrgyzstan because of “political prosecution” (as stated 

by the interpreter) and was afraid to return to Russia because he 

2 In his appeal to the BIA, Zhunusov did not challenge the 

reliability of the interview records. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 

“usually . . . issues not raised to the BIA will not be examined 

by the reviewing court”). Nor would he have had obvious grounds 

to do so. The records bear “hallmarks of reliability”: they are 

typewritten lists of questions and answers; Zhunusov had an 

interpreter; his responses to the questions indicate that he 

understood the interviewers; and the interviewers asked questions 

designed to elicit an asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 

F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009).
6

feared the Kyrgyz government would send someone to Russia to harm 

him, he did not elaborate further on these isolated comments and 

instead focused on the racial persecution he allegedly suffered in 

Russia. A.R. 848, 849. Nor did Zhunusov refer to the 2010 threats 

that he later identified as motivating him to flee Kyrgyzstan or

the 2018 threats that he said prompted him to flee Russia. The 

agency did not err in relying on these omissions together with its 

demeanor and other inconsistency findings, since the threats 

formed a material part of Zhunusov’s claim. See Hong Fei Gao, 891 

F.3d at 78, 82 (holding that “the probative value of a witness’s 

prior silence on particular facts depends on whether those facts 

are ones the witness would reasonably have been expected to 

disclose”); see also Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 726 (2d 

Cir. 2009) (the agency may “draw an adverse inference about 

petitioner’s credibility based, inter alia, on h[is] failure to 

mention” important details or events in prior statements).

Finally, the agency reasonably relied on Zhunusov’s 

inconsistent representations regarding when he resided in 

Kazakhstan and when he was detained in that country. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because the contradictions among his 

statements were apparent (that is, whether he was detained in 2006,

2007, 2010, or 2016), the agency was entitled to rely on these

inconsistencies without first soliciting explanations. See Majidi
7

v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005); Ming Shi Xue v. BIA,

439 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2006). In any event, the record reveals 

that the attorney for the Department of Homeland Security crossexamined Zhunusov about both the timing and length of his detention 

in Kazakhstan by pointing to inconsistencies between his testimony 

and his I-589. 

Having called Zhunusov’s credibility into question on these 

sound bases, the agency reasonably relied on his failure to 

rehabilitate his testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. 

See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An 

applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear 

on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general 

makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has 

already been called into question.”). Zhunusov submitted 

extensive country conditions evidence, but provided no evidence 

tending to corroborate his claim that he was involved in highprofile political work. Further, Zhunusov affirmatively stated

that he had not attempted to obtain medical records or letters 

from his former employer or attorney in Russia to corroborate his 

account of alleged beatings. 

Considered together, the IJ’s demeanor finding and the 

omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration in 

Zhunusov’s record amount to substantial evidence supporting the 
8

agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 

F.3d at 165–66. The adverse credibility determination is 

dispositive of Zhunusov’s claims for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief rest on 

the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

We do not reach Zhunusov’s argument that, even absent his own 

credible testimony, his country conditions evidence established 

that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia. Zhunusov 

did not exhaust the argument that the evidence showed a pattern or 

practice in Russia of persecuting similarly situated individuals

as would establish a well-founded fear of persecution under 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122–23 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that “we may 

consider only those issues that formed the basis for [the BIA’s] 

decision”); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 

F.3d 315, 334–35 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that we may not “engage 

in an independent evaluation of the cold record” or sit as “factfinders in the first instance”). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. Zhunusov’s pending motions for a stay of removal and to 

compel his return are DENIED as moot and the order granting a 

temporary emergency stay is VACATED. The joint motion by the 
9

American Immigration Council and Immigrant Defense Project for 

leave to file a brief amici curiae is GRANTED.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court