Opinion ID: 3158585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Credible, Persuasive, and Specific Testimony

Text: Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that Vicolas failed to persuasively and credibly establish a nexus between his mistreatment and detention following the November 2010 rally and his political opinion. Although he argues that it was plausible that he was arrested and detained for distributing 9 Case: 14-15174 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 10 of 15 anti-Communist pamphlets and protesting outside of Parliament, the record does not compel this conclusion. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286–87. The record shows that the police were present at the rally but did not harm the participants. It was not until Vicolas had left the rally and was on his way home that he was allegedly beaten and detained by police. In fact, the statement from Vicolas’s friend, who was present at the rally and with Vicolas on the bus, indicates that the rally was peaceful and that he and Vicolas did not encounter any problems until they got on the bus and started distributing pamphlets. Tellingly, no one else at the rally, not even those actually responsible for organizing it, experienced any trouble. Given these circumstances, the IJ reasonably determined that it was not clear whether Vicolas was arrested for distributing the pamphlets, which he had done without incident during the protest, or instead for violating a public law prohibiting the distribution of pamphlets on public transit. 4 Vicolas also had been involved in politics in Moldova for only one month when this incident occurred,5 while his other friends who had participated in 4 The BIA cited to a perceived inconsistency between Vicolas’s testimony and the PDPM certificate with regard to when Vicolas was beaten—at the rally or afterwards. This inconsistency does not appear to be an actual inconsistency. Vicolas testified that he was beaten and detained after the rally. The PDPM certificate stated that Vicolas was “beaten up and detained by police because of participating on this picketing and distributing anticommunist brochures.” However, contrary to the BIA’s finding, it does not indicate that Vicolas was beaten and detained at the rally. At any rate, there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding of other inconsistences and implausibility in the cited testimony. 5 Vicolas began participation in the activity that he would later use as a basis for a claim for 10 Case: 14-15174 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 11 of 15 politics for a substantially longer period of time than him did not suffer any harm. Moreover, his own testimony and the State Department Country Report reflect that at the time of this incident (as well as the subsequent two incidents), the Communist Party no longer even had majority control in Parliament. As the IJ pointed out, it seems highly implausible that Vicolas would begin his opposition to the Communist Party at the moment when they had lost majority control, or that he would be of any great interest to the Communists, given the fact that he had only recently joined the opposition. Thus, when viewed in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision, we cannot say that the record compels reversal of the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that Vicolas failed to credibly and persuasively establish a nexus between any alleged mistreatment and his political beliefs. See id. As to the January 2011 roundtable incident, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Vicolas’s testimony regarding this incident was vague, inconsistent, unpersuasive, and not credible. In particular, Vicolas was unable to provide a coherent explanation why a representative of the Communist Party would be present at an event organized by leaders of the opposition parties. He stated that all parties had representatives present, but was unable to name any speaker other than the representative of the Communist Party. Nor could he asylum only one month after returning to Moldova upon the expiration of his temporary visa. He remained in Moldova for only six months before returning to the United States and later claiming asylum. 11 Case: 14-15174 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 12 of 15 articulate a clear and consistent purpose for the event. Although alledgedly attacked, but not until he arrived home, it is notable that no one else at the meeting experienced any trouble. Vicolas’s only evidence that the attack was related to the roundtable discussion was his own testimony that he recognized one of his attackers as being at that event. However, given the weaknesses and inconsistencies in Vicolas’s testimony about the roundtable discussion itself, his lone testimony does not compel reversal of the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that he had not credibly established a nexus between this alleged beating and his political opinion. Cf. Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the totality of the record adequately supported the adverse credibility determination because petitioner’s testimony contained at least one inconsistency and one omission and petitioner failed to provide corroborating evidence to rebut those inconsistencies and omissions). Turning to the March 2011 restaurant incident, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Vicolas did not credibly and persuasively establish a sufficient nexus between his political opinion and the fight after dinner that led to his arrest and two-day detention. While the chief police officer’s alleged comment about liberals wanting to change the system could support an inference that the fight, arrest, and detention were because of his political beliefs, we cannot say that 12 Case: 14-15174 Date Filed: 11/30/2015 Page: 13 of 15 it compels that conclusion given that the evidence, equally—if not more so— supports an inference that Vicolas was arrested and detained because he had gotten into a fight and had other outstanding charges against him. See Farquharson v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (“To reverse a factual finding by the BIA, this Court must find not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but that it compels one.”). Indeed, Vicolas testified that he got into the fight with the three men because they insulted his wife. There is also no evidence to support his contention that the chief police officer’s identification of the charges against him—fighting and non-payment of fines—were “trumped up.” The subpoena that was sent to his parents’ home after he arrived in the United States provides nothing other than a criminal case number. Thus it could be related to his criminal case for starting the fight with the men who insulted his wife. Moreover, Vicolas’s wife, who was present for the alleged fight and could have corroborated his claim, did not testify. In sum, the record does not compel reversal of the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Vicolas failed to credibly and persuasively establish that his mistreatment was on account of his political beliefs.