19

- 2958 Chichilanov v. Garland BIA Palmer, IJ A 209 024 176 

### 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 APP**  **ENDIX 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held a t the Thurgood Marshall**  2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 1**  **2 t**  **h day of**  **M a**  **r c**  **h , two thousand twenty** 

**- one.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A, CABRANES ,**  7 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  8 **RICHARD J. SULLI V**  **AN ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ROMAN CHICHILANOV,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 2958**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  18 **U NITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,**  19 **Respondent**

**. 1**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Julia Greenberg , Esq. , New York , 23 NY

. 24

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.2 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Derek C. Julius , Assistant 1 Director; Anthony O. Pottinger , 2 Trial 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 Roman Chichilanov , a native and citizen of 11

Russia , seeks review of a n August 29, 2019 decision of the 12

BIA affirming a n April 5, 2019 decision of an Immigration 13
Judge (“IJ”) denying Chichilanov’s application for asylum, 14
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 15
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Roman Chichilanov , No. A 209 16

024 176 (B.I.A. Aug. 2 9, 2019 ), aff’g No. A 209 024 176 (Immig. 17

Ct. N.Y. City April 5 , 2019 ). We assume the parties’ 18
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19

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

the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 21
Cir. 2005). Chichilanov asserts his due process righ ts were 22

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

before the IJ ; he also challenges the agency’s adverse 243 credibility de termination

. 1

“ T o establish a violation of due process, an alien must 2
show that []he was denied a full and fair opportunity to 3
present [his] claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived 4
[him] of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 5
131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6

An alien must also demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as 7

a result of the alleged deprivation

. See Garcia

- Villeda v. 8
Mukasey , 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (requiring 9
allegation of “some cognizable prejudice” to state a due 10
process claim (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Although 11

Chichilanov insists that the interpreter at the video hearing 12
was incompetent and that the video equipment used to conduct 13
the remote hearing prevented the interpreter from 14
understanding and correctly interpr eting his complete 15
testimony , the hearing transcript reflects otherwise. In 16
fact, the transcript demonstrates that t he IJ instructed 17
Chichilanov to speak directly into the microphone, informed 18
him that he should clarify any misunderstandings or 19

mistransla tions, addressed the objections raised by 20
Chichilanov’s lawyer as to the accuracy of the translations , 214 and had the parties repeat questions to ensure Chichilanov ’s 1
complete answers were translated

. Based on this record, 2
Chichilanov has not shown he was dep rived a full and fair 3
opportunity to be heard or that he was prejudiced by 4
interpreter error. 5

As for Chichilanov’s challenge to the agency’s adverse 6
credibility determination , the record clearly reveals that 7
the IJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence

. 8
See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 9
In making credibility findings, a trier of fact may rely on 10

“ the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witn ess’s 11
account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 12
written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 13
of each such statement, the consistency of such statements 14
with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or 15

falsehoo ds in such statements, ” without regard to whether an 16
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood “ goes to the heart of 17
the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We 18
defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless , from 19
the totality of circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 20

fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 215 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); 1

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

Here, t he IJ reasonably re lied on (1) the discrepancy 3

between Chichilanov ’s written st a tement and his testimony 4
about how the police abused his wife ; (2) inconsistencies 5

between Chichilanov ’s and his wife’s account s of how long 6
they were deta i ned and how they got home when they were 7

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

omitted her own arrest and detention. And while an applicant 9
is not required to include every factual detail in his 10
application, the agency is permitted to consider the o mission 11

of information “that a credible petitioner would reasonably 12
have been expected to disclose.” Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 13

78

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

statement that the police tried to s u ffocate his wife is 15
exactly such an omission, and t he IJ was not required to 16
accept Chichilanov’s attempted explanation that his wife 17
prepared his case. Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 18
Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 19
explanation for his inconsis tent statements to secure relief; 20

he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be 216 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 1
omitted)). Since Chichilanov was unable to explain the 2

differences between his and his wife’s versions of events or 3
why his wife did not mention her arrest in her written 4

statement , the IJ was fully justified in making an adverse 5
credibility finding against Chichilanov

. Id. 6

The IJ was also justified in questioning the plausib ility 7

of Ch ichilanov ’s assertion that he became friends with the 8
neighbor who falsely accused him of assault . That skepticism 9
was compounded by the fact that Chichilanov did not know 10
whether his neighbor withdrew the complaint against him , or 11
explain why neither he nor his wife ever attempted to contact 12
the neighbor for a statement corroborating their claim of a 13
false prosecution against them in Russia

. See Wensheng Yan 14
v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 66

– 68 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing 15

that “the fa ct that there could conceivably be a scenario in 16
which [petitioner’s] behavior s would be plausible will not 17
compel this Court to label unreasonable an IJ’s finding of 18
implausibility”). 19
In short, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was 20
supported by substantial evidence. And since Chichilanov’s 217 asylum, withholding of removal, an d CAT claims all rely on 1
the same factual predicate , that adverse credibility finding 2
is dispositive as t o all three claims for relief

. See Paul 3

v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 4
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 6
stays VACATED. 7

FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hag an Wolfe, 9 Clerk of Court 10