Opinion ID: 2797987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Merits - Docket Number 13-3120(L)

Text: Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163 n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners were not credible. The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Petitioners’ testimony and their earlier sworn statements to border officials and asylum officers. See also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. As an initial matter, the IJ did not err in finding the typewritten records of Petitioners’ earlier 3 sworn statements reliable. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 721-25 (2d Cir. 2009). Petitioners’ statements were made with the assistance of interpreters, they signed each page of their recorded statements to border officials, and they were read summaries of their accounts during their credible fear interviews (at which Kujtim had counsel). See id. As the IJ noted, in contrast with their asylum claims, Petitioners told officials at their border interview that they did not fear harm in Albania and that they came to the United States to seek employment. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3. Furthermore, Kujtim’s account of his alleged beating in September 2005 differed between his credible fear interview and his merits hearing. At his interview, he claimed that police detained him in his village, walked him to an abandoned building, and beat him. However, he testified inconsistently at his hearing that police forced him into a car and drove him around for more than one hour before stopping at an abandoned house to beat him. Kujtim also made conflicting statements as to whether his family picked him up from the abandoned house or a stranger drove him home. 4 Vjollca’s accounts of the harm she suffered were also inconsistent between her credible fear interview and her merits hearing. She asserted at her interview that police thwarted individuals who attempted to kidnap her, while she testified at her hearing that an unidentified man scared away her attackers. Petitioners failed to provide compelling explanations for their discrepant statements. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 720; see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). Having questioned Petitioners’ credibility, the IJ reasonably relied further on their failure to provide credible evidence to rehabilitate their testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the IJ noted, Kujtim’s medical report and letters from the Democratic Party and the Association of the Former Politically Persecuted People of Albania were inconsistent with his testimony regarding the September 2005 incident. Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is dispositive of Petitioners’ claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not consider the agency’s alternative basis for denying relief.