Court Opinion

ID: 9383319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 15:00:37.020327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.955547
License: Public Domain

20-4058
     Khan v. Garland
                                                                             BIA
                                                                      Vomacka, IJ
                                                                     A206 283 730
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                  SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 30th day of March, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 9            STEVEN J. MENASHI,
10            EUNICE C. LEE,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   APPEL MAHMUD KHAN,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                  20-4058
18                                                         NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                   Usman B. Ahmad, Esq., Long Island
25                                     City, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                   Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                     Attorney General; Paul Fiorino,
 1                                 Senior Litigation Counsel; Robert
 2                                 Dale Tennyson, Jr., Trial
 3                                 Attorney, Office of Immigration
 4                                 Litigation, United States
 5                                 Department of Justice, Washington,
 6                                 DC.

 7       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 8   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

9    ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10   is DENIED.

11       Petitioner Appel Mahmud Khan, a native and citizen of

12   Bangladesh, seeks review of a September 15, 2020, decision of

13   the BIA affirming a May 23, 2018, decision of an Immigration

14   Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding

15   of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

16   (“CAT”).     In re Appel Mahmud Khan, No. A 206 283 730 (B.I.A.

17   Sept. 15, 2020), aff’g No. A 206 283 730 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

18   May 23, 2018).      We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

19   underlying facts and procedural history.

20       We have reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for

21   the sake of completeness.”       Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland

22   Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).                “Congress has

23   specified    that   ‘the   administrative   findings    of   fact    are

24   conclusive     unless   any   reasonable    adjudicator      would    be

                                       2
 1   compelled to conclude to the contrary.’”              Singh v. Garland,

 2   11   F.4th   106,   112–13    (2d    Cir.   2021)    (quoting    8    U.S.C.

 3   § 1252(b)(4)(B)).            Accordingly,      we      review        adverse

 4   credibility determinations for “substantial evidence.”                  Hong

 5   Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).

 6        “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

 7   relevant facts, a trier of fact may base a credibility

 8   determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

 9   or witness’s written and oral statements . . . the consistency

10   of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and

11   any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without

12   regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood

13   goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .”              8 U.S.C.

14   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).        “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility

15   determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,

16   it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an

17   adverse credibility ruling.”             Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

18   F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d

19   at 76.

20        Substantial     evidence       supports   the    agency’s       adverse

21   credibility determination.          Khan alleged that he was severely

                                          3
1    beaten in 2012 and 2013 by members of the Awami League (“AL”)

2    because of his support of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party

3    (“BNP”),     and       that     both       attacks      resulted        in     his

4    hospitalization.

5          As an initial matter, the IJ did not err in admitting

6    the   record     of    Khan’s     asylum         interview   as       impeachment

7    evidence, or in relying on the record of that interview in

8    addressing      credibility.           Impeachment        evidence       may   be

9    submitted at any time.             See Immigr. Ct. Prac. Man., Ch.

10   3.1(b)(2)(B).      1       Moreover,        the     agency      may     rely   on

11   inconsistencies between an interview statements and hearing

12   testimony if the interview record is reliable.                    See 8 U.S.C.

13   § 1158(b)(B)(iii); Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 632 (2d

14   Cir. 2006).      Khan’s asylum interview bore sufficient indicia

15   of reliability as it was typed, memorialized in a question-

16   and-answer      format,    conducted        in    his   native    language     of

17   Bengali, and sworn and dated.              Diallo, 445 F.3d at 632–33.

18         As the agency found, a comparison of the interview record

19   and    Khan’s      later       statements         and   testimony        revealed

20   inconsistencies        about    when   he    attended     BNP     rallies,     the

     1 Available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-
     materials/ic/chapter-3/1.
                                            4
 1   severity of alleged beatings in 2012 and 2013, whether he

 2   reported both attacks to police, and how many people attended

 3   the 2012 rally (a few hundred or a few thousand).                         These

 4   inconsistencies       constitute      substantial       evidence      for    the

 5   adverse       credibility    determination,        particularly      as     they

 6   relate directly to the alleged persecution: “[T]he greater

 7   the importance of the fact upon which inconsistency is found

 8   for the success of the petition . . . the more likely it is

 9   that    a     truthful    account     would      not   have    included     the

10   inconsistency.”      Singh v. Garland, 6 F.4th 418, 431 (2d Cir.

11   2021); see also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d

12   Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an

13   alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him

14   credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even

15   more forcefully.”).

16          The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by

17   the    IJ’s    demeanor     finding    to    which     we   give    particular

18   deference, see Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d

19   99,    109     (2d   Cir.    2006),        and   the    lack   of    reliable

20   corroboration, Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d

21   Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her

                                            5
 1   testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of

 2   corroboration      in     general   makes       an   applicant     unable    to

 3   rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into

 4   question.”).      The agency did not err in declining to credit

 5   Khan’s documentary evidence.          Letters from Khan’s former co-

 6   workers did not clarify whether he reported attacks to the

 7   police,   and    the    authors     were    not      available    for    cross-

 8   examination.      See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d

 9   Cir. 2013) (holding that weight of documentary evidence is

10   within agency’s discretion); see also Likai Gao, 968 F.3d at

11   149 (holding that IJ acted within her discretion in declining

12   to credit evidence from witnesses who were unavailable for

13   cross-examination).          And    the    IJ   reasonably       gave   limited

14   weight    to    medical    records,       particularly     as     the    letter

15   confirming treatment for leg and chest injuries was from a

16   psychiatrist.      See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 332.

17       Given the inconsistencies, the IJ’s demeanor finding,

18   and the lack of reliable corroboration, substantial evidence

19   supports the adverse credibility determination.                   See 8 U.S.C.

20   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; Biao Yang,

21   496 F.3d at 272–73.          The adverse credibility determination

                                           6
 1   is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

 2   relief because all three claims are based on the same factual

 3   predicate.    See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d

 4   Cir. 2006).

 5       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

 6   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

 7   stays VACATED.

 8                               FOR THE COURT:
 9                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
10                               Clerk of Court

                                   7