# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 12 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Md Ift ia r Udd in

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I, Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 27 , 20 17 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 7, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Th e B oa rd of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) affi rm ed th e de ci si on b y a n im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ) to de ny Md Ift ia r Udd in ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d pr ot ect io n un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga i n s t Tort ur e, fin di ng th at
Udd in ’s al le ga ti on s were no t cred ib le

. Udd in pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w. W e de ny th e
pe ti ti on

.Udd in is a na ti on al an d ci ti zen of Ban gl ad es h. Acco rd in g to hi s te st im on y an d

su bm is si on s du rin g hi s ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in gs , Ud di n was a lo cal le ad er in th e Ban gl ad es h Nati on al Part y an d was at ta ck ed an d th reat en ed by m em be rs of th e riv al
Awam i Leag ue wit h th e co m pl ic it y of th e po li ce. W e c o n c lu de th at su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce su pp or ts th e de ci si on to di sc red it Udd in ’s a c c ou nt be cau se a “ reas on ab le
ad jud ic at or wou ld [n ot ] be co m pe ll ed to co nc lu de to th e co n t r a r y.” Oso no wo v. Mu ka se y , 52 1 F.3 d 92 2, 92 7 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(4 )(B) ) (al te rat io n ad de d)

. Udd in rep eat ed ly m is st at ed th e ci rcu m st an ces of ho w he joi ne d
th e BNP, cl ai m in g to ha ve pr es en te d a na ti on al id en ti fic at io n card th at in fact was no t
is su ed un ti l th ree y ears la te r. Udd in ’s un su pp or te d acco un t of po li ce co ll us io n wit h
th e Awam i Leag ue was in te ns io n wit h th e fact th at Ban gl ad es h was co nt ro ll ed by an

un affi li at ed “ care ta ke r” go ve rn m en t at th e rel ev an t ti m e. Udd in al so g a v e t h ree d i f f e r e nt acco un ts of th e at ta ck th at al le ge dl y pr om pt ed hi m to le av e th e co un try , ch an gi n g de ta il s ab ou t whe re it ha pp en ed

, who was wit h hi m , an d whe th er hi s

co m pa ni on s wer e at ta ck ed as we ll

.

The jus ti fic a t i o n s Udd in of fers fo r th es e an d ot he r di sc rep an ci es , whi le pl au si bl e, are no t co m

pe ll ed by th e reco rd

, so we wil l no t ov erru l e t h e c r e d i b il it y fin di ng s of th e IJ an d th e BIA. See Khr y st ot od or ov v. Mu ka se y , 55 1 F.3 d 77 5, 78 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ A rev ie win g co ur t m ay no t su pe rs ed e an ag en cy fin di ng si m pl y be cau se an al te rn a t i v e f i n di ng co ul d al so be su pp or te d.” ). Fu rth er, Udd in ’s

co nt rad ic ti on s an d om is si on s are no t m in or bu t re la te to th e n at ur e an d c au se of h is
al le ge d p ers ecu ti on

. See Ch ak ho v v. Ly nc h , 8 37 F.3d 84 3, 8 47 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) ; cf.
8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), 12 29 a(c) (4 )(C) (p ro vi di ng th at c r ed ib il it y de te rm ina t io ns in im

m ig rat io n cas es can be ba se d on th e pl au si bi li ty, co ns is te nc y , an d

accu racy of th e ap pl ic an t’s sta te m en ts “ wit ho ut reg ard to whe th er an in co ns is te nc y , in accu racy, or fal se ho od go es to th e h eart of t he ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m ”).

The pe ti ti on is de ni ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-