19-2958

Chichilanov v. Garland

BIA

Palmer, IJ

A209 024 176

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 12th 4 day of March, two thousand twenty-one.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A, CABRANES,

8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 ROMAN CHICHILANOV,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 19-2958

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.1 20

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Julia Greenberg, Esq., New York,

24 NY.

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney 

General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Derek C. Julius, Assistant 

2 Director; Anthony O. Pottinger,

3 Trial Attorney, Office of 

4 Immigration Litigation, United 

5 States Department of Justice, 

6 Washington, DC.

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Roman Chichilanov, a native and citizen of

12 Russia, seeks review of an August 29, 2019 decision of the 

13 BIA affirming an April 5, 2019 decision of an Immigration 

14 Judge (“IJ”) denying Chichilanov’s application for asylum, 

15 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Roman Chichilanov, No. A 209 

17 024 176 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2019), aff’g No. A 209 024 176 (Immig. 

18 Ct. N.Y. City April 5, 2019). We assume the parties’ 

19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 

20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 

21 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 

22 Cir. 2005). Chichilanov asserts his due process rights were 

23 violated as a result of interpreter error at his video hearing 

24 before the IJ; he also challenges the agency’s adverse 
3

1 credibility determination. 

2 “To establish a violation of due process, an alien must 

3 show that []he was denied a full and fair opportunity to 

4 present [his] claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived 

5 [him] of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 

6 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

7 An alien must also demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as 

8 a result of the alleged deprivation. See Garcia-Villeda v. 

9 Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring 

10 allegation of “some cognizable prejudice” to state a due 

11 process claim (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although 

12 Chichilanov insists that the interpreter at the video hearing 

13 was incompetent and that the video equipment used to conduct 

14 the remote hearing prevented the interpreter from 

15 understanding and correctly interpreting his complete 

16 testimony, the hearing transcript reflects otherwise. In 

17 fact, the transcript demonstrates that the IJ instructed 

18 Chichilanov to speak directly into the microphone, informed 

19 him that he should clarify any misunderstandings or 

20 mistranslations, addressed the objections raised by 

21 Chichilanov’s lawyer as to the accuracy of the translations, 
4

1 and had the parties repeat questions to ensure Chichilanov’s 

2 complete answers were translated. Based on this record, 

3 Chichilanov has not shown he was deprived a full and fair 

4 opportunity to be heard or that he was prejudiced by 

5 interpreter error. 

6 As for Chichilanov’s challenge to the agency’s adverse 

7 credibility determination, the record clearly reveals that 

8 the IJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. 

9 See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 

10 In making credibility findings, a trier of fact may rely on 

11 “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s 

12 account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 

13 written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 

14 of each such statement, the consistency of such statements 

15 with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or 

16 falsehoods in such statements,” without regard to whether an 

17 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood “goes to the heart of 

18 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We

19 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from 

20 the totality of circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 

21 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 
5

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

2 accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. 

3 Here, the IJ reasonably relied on (1) the discrepancy 

4 between Chichilanov’s written statement and his testimony 

5 about how the police abused his wife; (2) inconsistencies 

6 between Chichilanov’s and his wife’s accounts of how long 

7 they were detained and how they got home when they were 

8 released; and (3) the fact that his wife’s written statement 

9 omitted her own arrest and detention. And while an applicant 

10 is not required to include every factual detail in his 

11 application, the agency is permitted to consider the omission 

12 of information “that a credible petitioner would reasonably 

13 have been expected to disclose.” Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 

14 78–79. Chichilanov’s failure to mention in his written 

15 statement that the police tried to suffocate his wife is 

16 exactly such an omission, and the IJ was not required to 

17 accept Chichilanov’s attempted explanation that his wife 

18 prepared his case. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 

19 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 

20 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; 

21 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be 
6

1 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 

2 omitted)). Since Chichilanov was unable to explain the 

3 differences between his and his wife’s versions of events or 

4 why his wife did not mention her arrest in her written 

5 statement, the IJ was fully justified in making an adverse 

6 credibility finding against Chichilanov. Id. 

7 The IJ was also justified in questioning the plausibility 

8 of Chichilanov’s assertion that he became friends with the 

9 neighbor who falsely accused him of assault. That skepticism 

10 was compounded by the fact that Chichilanov did not know 

11 whether his neighbor withdrew the complaint against him, or 

12 explain why neither he nor his wife ever attempted to contact 

13 the neighbor for a statement corroborating their claim of a 

14 false prosecution against them in Russia. See Wensheng Yan 

15 v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66–68 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing 

16 that “the fact that there could conceivably be a scenario in 

17 which [petitioner’s] behaviors would be plausible will not 

18 compel this Court to label unreasonable an IJ’s finding of 

19 implausibility”). 

20 In short, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was 

21 supported by substantial evidence. And since Chichilanov’s 
7

1 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims all rely on 

2 the same factual predicate, that adverse credibility finding 

3 is dispositive as to all three claims for relief. See Paul 

4 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

6 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

7 stays VACATED.

8 FOR THE COURT: 

9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

10 Clerk of Court