Opinion ID: 201584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sharari's testimony

Text: 10 Sharari's testimony was taken at different times in 2000 and 2001 because of continuances granted to obtain additional pieces of evidence. In sum, Sharari generally confirmed the statements in his affidavit. However, he also testified to two additional incidents of abuse and torture in the mid-1980s, which he was describing for the first time. 11 First, Sharari testified that in 1985, while traveling to Beirut, he was shot at by members of the Amal militia, a Shi'a group, because he was Palestinian. After shooting Sharari in the leg, the militiamen seized him and brought him to the basement of a house. There, Sharari was held for fifteen days and tortured every single day, which included being punched in the face. Other people also being held with Sharari were killed. Eventually, Sharari was released. He was treated at a hospital for sixteen days, although he did not have any medical records from his stay there. 12 Second, Sharari testified that in 1986, he was again seized by the Amal militia while traveling to Beirut. He was taken blindfolded to a crude basement jail, where he was detained for thirty days and interrogated. During interrogations he was beaten, burned, hung upside down [a]lmost every day, and deprived of sleep at night by having water thrown on him. 13 Sharari also testified that the lone account of physical abuse in his affidavit had been inaccurate in three respects: the year, the length of detention, and the reason for his release. He testified that he had been seized in 1987, not 1986; that he had been detained for a day and a half, not three days; and that, although his aunt had tried to bribe someone, he was in fact released in a different manner, without explaining what he meant by that remark. 14 When the government pressed Sharari to explain why he had omitted the 1985 and 1986 incidents from his affidavit, Sharari said: I was afraid that from the injury I received, it would give the impression that I was a troublemaker or I was fighting or something like that. 15 D. Immigration judge's decision and the Board's affirmance 16 On March 28, 2002, at the end of the last hearing, the immigration judge made an oral ruling. He recited the pertinent details of Sharari's application, affidavits, and testimony; found him removable as charged; and denied his application for relief. Regarding the claim of asylum, the judge found that Sharari had failed to establish that he would be persecuted or had a well-founded fear of persecution upon returning to Lebanon. Sharari's next claim, for withholding of removal, was necessarily dismissed because its burden of proof is higher than an asylum claim's burden. Finally, as to the CAT claim, the judge found no credible evidence that the Lebanese government would more likely than not torture Sharari if he returned to Lebanon. Specifically, the immigration judge found that Sharari's only evidence on this point was his own testimony, which he had not included in his original application and was now giving for the first time. The court granted Sharari's request for voluntary departure in lieu of removal. 17 On October 28, 2003, the Board affirmed the immigration judge's decision in its entirety, although it affirmed the denial of the asylum claim on different grounds. The Board held that Sharari was ineligible for asylum because he did not file his application within a year after arriving in the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), and because the record did not reveal any extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay or any changed circumstances that might otherwise affect his eligibility, see id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). As for the rest of Sharari's appeal, the Board deferred to the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, which is based on material, inadequately explained omissions in the record. These significant discrepancies left Sharari without any credible evidence to support his application, thereby dooming his attempt to qualify for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. 18 This appeal followed.