Court Opinion

ID: 9838786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 21:01:13.750765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:42.298775
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1036      Doc: 18         Filed: 09/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1036

        ALEXEI IVANOVICH PRINOS; KRISTINA MOVSISYAN,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: July 28, 2023                                     Decided: September 6, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
        Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation,
        Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1036      Doc: 18          Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Alexei Ivanovich Prinos, a native and citizen of Moldova, is removable for having

        overstayed his visa. Prinos applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protections

        under the Conventions Against Torture (“CAT”). Kristina Movsisyan, a native of Armenia

        and a Russian citizen, is also removable. Movsisyan is Prinos’ spouse and a derivative

        asylum applicant. They petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

        Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

        denying Prinos’ applications for relief from removal. We deny the petition for review.

               The Board affirmed the IJ’s finding that Prinos was not credible and his independent

        corroborative evidence did not support his claim. The IJ, after “[c]onsidering the totality

        of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” may make an adverse credibility

        determination. Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 928 (4th Cir. 2013). In evaluating the

        applicant’s credibility, the IJ may consider:

               the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the
               inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency
               between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever
               made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances
               under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such
               statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record
               (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and
               any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether
               an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's
               claim, or any other relevant factor.

        Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233, 245 n.10 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

        § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). A credibility determination may rest on any relevant factor, even if

        such factor does not “go to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 928.

                                                        2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1036      Doc: 18        Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds “must provide

        specific, cogent reasons” for doing so.         Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273

        (4th Cir. 2011).   The IJ “may not rely on speculation, conjecture, or an otherwise

        unsupported personal opinion to discredit an applicant’s testimony or [his] corroborating

        evidence,” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

        marks omitted), or “cherry pick facts or inconsistencies to support an adverse credibility

        finding that is unsupported by the record as a whole,” Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 207

        (4th Cir. 2015). But “[a] single testimonial discrepancy, particularly when supported by

        other facts in the record, may be sufficient to find an applicant incredible in some

        circumstances.” Id.

               We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, a “narrow and

        deferential review.” Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291, 298 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “An adverse credibility finding is generally fatal to an asylum

        claim unless the alien proves his refugee status through evidence independent of his own

        testimony.” Hui Pan, 737 F.3d at 930. We have reviewed the record and the Petitioners’

        arguments and conclude that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial

        evidence.

               “An adverse credibility determination supported by substantial evidence generally

        dooms an asylum claim unless the application can prove actual past prosecution through

        independent objective evidence.” Herrera-Alcala, 39 F.4th at 245. We have reviewed

        Prinos’ independent corroborating evidence and conclude that there is no evidence that

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1036      Doc: 18         Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

        Prinos was persecuted because he was Roma. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

        as to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

               Unlike asylum, an adverse credibility finding is relevant to the CAT determination,

        but not determinative. Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see

        also Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective

        component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on

        which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat”

        the CAT claim). Prinos asserts that he established that he was tortured in Moldovia,

        supporting the finding that he will likely be tortured when if he returns. Evidence of past

        torture is relevant to a CAT claim, but it does not create a presumption of future torture.

        Factors to consider are: (1) whether the applicant could safely relocate to another part of

        the country; (2) evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights within the

        country of removal; and (3) other relevant information of country conditions. Cabrera

        Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2019). “When an applicant claims a fear of

        torture from multiple entities, the agency must assess the likelihood of torture by

        aggregating the risk from all sources.” Ibarra Chevez, 31 F.4th at 288 (internal quotation

        marks omitted). This Court reviews the denial of protection under the CAT for substantial

        evidence and legal determinations de novo. Id. at 288-89.

               Because Prinos’ testimony was not credible, Prinos must support his application for

        CAT protection with independent corroborating evidence. But he failed to do so. There is

        no independent evidence showing that Prinos faces a particularized risk of torture if he

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1036     Doc: 18         Filed: 09/06/2023    Pg: 5 of 5

        returns to Moldova. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to the denial of CAT

        protection.

               We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                            PETITION DENIED

                                                   5