Opinion ID: 2974073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asylum: Timeliness and Jurisdiction

Text: An applicant must file for asylum within one year after entering the United States, unless he can demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). The BIA found Petitioner’s asylum application untimely because he filed it eighteen months after entering the country and because he did not qualify for any exception. This Court may review the denial of an asylum application for untimeliness where the appeal seeks review of constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction, but it lacks jurisdiction to do so where the appeal seeks review of discretionary or factual questions. Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006). Petitioner’s case falls into the latter category: the IJ and the Board denied his application because eighteen months elapsed before he filed it, and because it did not cite any changed or extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, this Court may not review the denial of Petitioner’s asylum application as untimely. III. Withholding of Removal and CAT: Petitioner’s Credibility “An alien seeking withholding of removal must demonstrate ‘that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.’” Singh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 951 (6th Cir. 2004)). To receive protection under the CAT, an alien must show it is “more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). 8 05-4458 Assi v. Gonzales Petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT are based on his assertion that he was arrested, interrogated, and beaten sixteen times by Hezbollah. Because the IJ determined Petitioner’s story was not credible, Petitioner could not meet his burdens. Because the credibility determination is a “finding of fact,” the Court reviews under the substantial evidence standard. Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s factual determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). This Court may not reverse simply because it would have ruled differently. Klawitter v. INS, 970 F.2d 149, 151-52 (6th Cir. 1992). “Rather, in order to reverse the BIA’s factual determinations, the reviewing court must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed compels it.” Id. at 152. The Board’s adverse credibility finding must be “supported by specific reasons” and “based on issues that go to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” Sylla, 388 F.3d at 926. The cited discrepancies must be “viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution. . . .” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The IJ found Petitioner’s story incredible due to several inconsistencies in the testimony and the record. However, the BIA found that some of those cited inconsistencies were either not supported by the record, did not go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim, or were based on speculation, so it discounted them. But, the Board found that four of the inconsistencies the IJ cited were supported by the record and did go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim, thereby justifying the adverse credibility finding. First, Petitioner’s testimony about when he told his wife (who was his girlfriend at the time) about the arrests and beatings conflicted with his wife’s statement. Petitioner claims Hezbollah first 9 05-4458 Assi v. Gonzales arrested him in February of 2000, and that the last arrest was in October of that year. At the hearing, Petitioner said he only told his girlfriend that Hezbollah had been arresting and beating him “at the end,” and that the time when she saw him arrested on his birthday in April was “before that.” However, when counsel asked Petitioner’s wife whether the arrest on April 3rd was the first time she learned of his problems with Hezbollah, she said that it was not, that Petitioner first told her in March, after he had been arrested only two or three times. The IJ considered this contradiction evidence that the two could not keep their story straight, indicating it was made up. He said Petitioner’s wife “completely torpedoed his claim and demonstrated beyond any doubt that [Petitioner] lied about his whole claim and . . . that he made up the important, most material aspect of his claim, that is that Hizballah had arrested him and had beaten him and tortured him on 16 different occasions.” (JA 33-34). Second, Petitioner’s statements about where Hezbollah arrested him were internally inconsistent. In his credible fear interview, Petitioner testified that Hezbollah “would come to [his] work and sometimes they would come to [his] house and pick [him] up.” (JA 212). Additionally, at his merits heating, Petitioner first testified that “[t]hey would arrest me from my job, place or my home . . . .” (JA 78). However, when asked why his employer had not observed this, Petitioner backpedaled, stating, “[t]hey, they would not come and arrest me in front of everybody . . . but somebody would come to me as if he’s buying from me and then would tell me that there’s a car waiting for you there.” (JA 90-91). Likewise, when asked why his family never observed him being arrested from his home, Petitioner replied that “[t]hey, they wouldn’t take me from, from inside the house while I’m (indiscernible), maybe outside they would tell me that tomorrow we will come. We 10 05-4458 Assi v. Gonzales will take you from the such and such place. Be there.” (JA 98-99). The IJ found the contradiction between Petitioner’s early descriptions of his problems with Hezbollah (“they would come to my house and pick me up”) to be inconsistent with his later descriptions (“maybe outside they would tell me that tomorrow we will . . . take you from the such and such place”), which only surfaced once Petitioner was asked why no one witnessed his sixteen arrests, adversely reflected on his credibility. Third, Petitioner’s statement upon arrival at the Atlanta airport conflicted with his later testimony about what Hezbollah had done to him. At the airport, when asked from what he sought protection, Petitioner said only that he was being “followed or gone after” by Hezbollah, and that he sought “emotional protection more than other protection.” (JA 203). At the merits hearing, he testified that he told the immigration officer at the airport “all the truth exactly like my story had happened.” (JA 82). Yet that story omitted any reference to arrests and beatings. Though Petitioner claims they did not ask him about arrests, the immigration officer asked from what Petitioner sought protection, but he did not mention what later became his main claim for asylum and withholding of removal. Fourth, Petitioner’s descriptions of Hezbollah’s accusations changed over time. At his credible fear interview, Petitioner said Hezbollah accused him of “carrying information from where [he] live[d] and carrying information to Israel.” (JA 211). However, he later testified that Hezbollah said he was “giving information to people that work for Israel, that is the army of [General Antoine] Lahad and as such, therefore, I am also a spy.” (JA 97). The IJ found that the change in Petitioner’s story from being accused to carrying information to Israel to giving information to Israeli agents was inconsistent and therefore unreliable. 11 05-4458 Assi v. Gonzales The BIA also cited Petitioner’s failure to provide reasonable explanations for these contradictions and to corroborate his story with reliable evidence, despite the opportunity to do so. For example, Petitioner presented a letter from his father that was dated well after Petitioner claims he told his father the whole story, yet the letter does not mention arrests or beatings. Rather, it says “circumstances are still the same as they were before you left, and you know what I mean, surveillance, and questions and tracking . . . .” (JA 236). The IJ found that Petitioner’s failure to secure a letter from his father mentioning the arrests and beatings, or that his father had observed Petitioner’s injuries after the arrests, when Petitioner obviously had the opportunity to do so, reflected poorly on Petitioner’s credibility. The IJ noted that Petitioner’s father’s 2003 police complaint did not mention Hezbollah or that Petitioner had been arrested and beaten. Petitioner’s friend’s testimony and the letter from the mayor of his hometown contained only hearsay, and provided no reliable corroboration. Based on the preceding, the Board found the IJ’s adverse credibility determination not clearly erroneous. The BIA supported its adverse credibility finding with the specific reasons set forth above, and the Court agrees that the cited inconsistencies go to the heart of the matter: whether Petitioner was in fact arrested and beaten sixteen times by Hezbollah. The record supports the findings that Petitioner’s story conflicted with that told by his wife, and evolved over time in the face of specific questions, developing internal inconsistencies about where Hezbollah took him from and of what they accused him. Petitioner omitted from his airport statement not merely certain details of his larger story, but rather the central events supporting his later applications for asylum and withholding of removal. These discrepancies may be “viewed as attempts by the applicant to 12 05-4458 Assi v. Gonzales enhance his claims of persecution.” On this record, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner testified credibly. The Court affirms the Board’s adverse credibility determination.