Opinion ID: 62530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Decisions of the IJ and the BIA

Text: The IJ denied Hakhverdyan’s asylum application. The IJ found that Hakhverdyan lacked credibility after considering his “demeanor, candor, responsiveness, and the rationality and internal consistency and inherent persuasiveness of his testimony.” Specifically, the IJ found it troubling that 8 Hakhverdyan was unable to answer simple “yes or no” questions and that his hearing testimony with regard to the April 12 demonstration and his arrest was considerably more detailed than the statement attached to his asylum application or his statements to the Asylum Office in his credible fear interview. The IJ stated that he had reviewed all of Hakhverdyan’s supplemental documentation and noted the following inconsistencies: (1) in Hakhverdyan’s application statement, Hakhverdyan did not provide details about his injuries or harm that occurred to him during the police interference with the April 12 demonstration; (2) in that statement, Hakhverdyan said that the police used stun grenades and electric shock equipment; however, at the hearing, he testified that the police used water cannons and an explosive device that shot small pieces of plastic; (3) although Hakhverdyan testified that an officer held a gun to his head, he did not indicate that the trigger was pulled, as he had in his application statement; (4) although Hakhverdyan stated in his application statement that he received threatening phone calls after he was released, he failed to mention such calls in his hearing testimony; (5) Hakhverdyan testified at the hearing that police had taken his money and cell phone, but failed to note this in his application statement; and (6) Hakhverdyan stated for the first time at the hearing that he was accused of hitting a police officer with a bottle. As to this last inconsistency, the IJ noted that the 2005 Amnesty International report contained a similar account of an arrested demonstrator who admitted hitting a 9 police officer with a plastic bottle. The IJ noted that Hakhverdyan presented no corroborating letters or statements from others who helped him. The IJ also found that Hakhverdyan had not established his identity and noted Hakhverdyan’s two passports with the same picture. Alternatively, the IJ concluded that, even if he accepted Hakhverdyan’s testimony as true, Hakhverdyan had not established past persecution. Specifically, the IJ determined that Hakhverdyan’s termination from his job and treatment by the police for participating in an illegal demonstration did not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ also concluded that Hakhverdyan had not shown a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Finally, the IJ determined that, even if Hakhverdyan had established eligibility for asylum, he would deny asylum in the exercise of discretion because of Hakhverdyan’s use of fraudulent passports. Hakhverdyan appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s decision. As to Hakhverdyan’s credibility, the BIA agreed that the missing pages from Hakhverdyan’s passport were “sufficient to call into question his identity.” The BIA agreed that the evidence was insufficient to show that Hakhverdyan had suffered past persecution. The BIA stated that Hakhverdyan’s alleged mistreatment “was not so severe as to constitute persecution” and that Hakhverdyan had not shown that the mistreatment was on account of a protected 10 ground. Hakhverdyan filed this petition for review.2