Opinion ID: 2684151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2011 IJ Hearing and BIA Affirmance

Text: Shah testified and presented evidence of his past persecution claims to an IJ in Boston in July 2011. The IJ also considered Shah's testimony and submitted evidence from earlier -3- hearings. The focus of the hearing was on Shah's alleged past arrest and persecution at the hands of Pakistani police, which was said to have resulted from his membership in the PML political party. Shah's 2011 testimony sought to explain inconsistencies in his story.1 See Shah v. Att'y Gen., 273 F. App'x 176, 176-78 (3d Cir. 2008) (recounting Shah's first hearing before an IJ in Philadelphia and resulting lack-of-credibility finding). In particular, Shah testified to the circumstances of his arrest and later release in Pakistan, the duration of his detention, and his resulting medical treatment. At the conclusion of the 2011 hearing, the IJ denied Shah's petition for asylum and withholding of removal, finding him not credible and not to have made out his claim of past persecution 1 Inconsistencies in Shah's testimony had led to an adverse credibility finding in an earlier set of hearings. Shah's first merits hearing before an IJ was in August 2004, and the IJ found him not to be credible. When the BIA reviewed that decision in 2006, it adopted the IJ's conclusion but did not specifically discuss whether the record supported the IJ's adverse credibility finding. Shah v. Att'y Gen., 273 F. App'x 176, 178 (3d Cir. 2008). Shah then petitioned for review in the Third Circuit, and the government filed a motion to remand to the BIA for further consideration of the credibility issue, which was granted. Id. On remand, the BIA concluded that the record did not support the IJ's adverse credibility finding; however, the Board nonetheless denied Shah's petition on the grounds that he failed to meet his burden of proof because he failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence. Id. Shah again petitioned for review in the Third Circuit. That court, on grounds that are not relevant here, remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ so that Shah could have an opportunity to present corroborating evidence. Id. at 180. We focus here on the IJ's 2011 de novo review of evidence that Shah presented on remand from the Third Circuit. -4- or of likely future persecution. The IJ highlighted a series of significant inconsistencies between his 2011 testimony and his testimony in earlier asylum proceedings. The IJ noted that Shah's previous testimony that he was taken into custody alone clashed with his current testimony that he was arrested alongside his junior secretary, and that Shah was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for this material discrepancy. Likewise, the IJ noted Shah's varying descriptions of how long he was detained by the Pakistani police: in 2011, he said he was detained for about one month, while he had previously testified that he was held for five or six days. The IJ also found Shah's proffered documentary evidence to be problematic, specifically that the PML membership card he submitted to demonstrate his party affiliation was blank. The IJ denied the application for lack of credibility, and did not render a decision as to whether the documents could sustain his asylum claim in any event. Shah appealed the IJ's decision, and the BIA found that the IJ's adverse credibility finding was based on specific examples in the record of inconsistent statements and was not clearly erroneous. After affirming the IJ's credibility determination, the BIA found it unnecessary to determine whether Shah would have established his eligibility for asylum if he had been found credible. Shah did not petition for review of that ruling. -5-