Court Opinion

ID: 9890553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 16:00:41.884473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:39.259454
License: Public Domain

21-6342
     Mohamed Mahmoud v. Garland
                                                                                     BIA
                                                                               Ruehle, IJ
                                                                             A200 914 917

                        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 for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of October, two thousand
 4   twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7                 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
 8                 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
 9                 ALISON J. NATHAN,
10                    Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   TALEB AHMED DAH MOHAMED
14   MAHMOUD,
15           Petitioner,
16
17                 v.                                              21-6342
18                                                                 NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21              Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                    Robert F. Graziano, Esq., Niagara Falls, NY.
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
 2                                       Attorney General; Jennifer P. Levings,
 3                                       Assistant Director; Stephanie L. Groff, Trial
 4                                       Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
 5                                       United States Department of Justice,
 6                                       Washington, DC.

 7         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

8    Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

9    DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

10         Petitioner Taleb Ahmed Dah Mohamed Mahmoud, a native and citizen of

11   Mauritania, seeks review of a May 20, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a

12   December 13, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his

13   application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

14   Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Taleb Ahmed Dah Mohamed Mahmoud, No. A 200 914

15   917 (B.I.A. May 20, 2021), aff’g No. A 200 914 917 (Immigr. Ct. Buffalo Dec. 13,

16   2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

17   history.

18         We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

19   completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.

20   2006). We review an adverse credibility determination “under the substantial

21   evidence standard.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he
                                              2
 1   administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator

 2   would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 3         “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a

 4   trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between

 5   the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and

 6   whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the

 7   statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the

 8   consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any

 9   inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an

10   inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim,

11   or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer therefore to

12   an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is

13   plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility

14   ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

15   Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.

16         The agency reasonably relied on an inconsistency about the marriage that

17   was the basis of Mohamed Mahmoud’s claim. He alleged that he was jailed,

18   tortured, and charged with kidnapping and rape for marrying a woman of a

                                               3
 1   higher-level tribe and a different race, but his statements about whether he was

 2   divorced from that wife were inconsistent with his documentary evidence. He

 3   testified that he married that woman in 2010, but her parents discovered them, and

 4   the police charged him with marrying without her family’s permission. He

 5   explained that the marriage was not registered, but that they were still married

 6   and had not divorced. He also confirmed that he married a different Mauritanian

 7   woman while in the United States in 2013, who visits the United States

 8   occasionally but lives in Mauritania with their two children.

 9         His testimony that he and his first wife were not divorced is inconsistent

10   with his own documentary evidence. He produced a Mauritanian Ministry of

11   Justice decree that he was divorced in absentia in July 2010 due to “the annulment

12   of a customary marriage.” Certified Administrative Record (“C.A.R.”) at 478. His

13   testimony about the decree added to the inconsistency: he acknowledged the

14   divorce decree but testified that “her parents did this,” but also indicated that he

15   was unaware that the document was in the record. C.A.R. at 119. Because his

16   marriage was the cause of the alleged persecution, this inconsistency about his

17   marital status relates to the basis for his claim and provides substantial support

18   for the adverse credibility determination. See Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145

                                              4
 1   n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from

 2   showing that and IJ was compelled to find him credible.”). The agency was not

 3   compelled to accept his explanation that he believed he was still married because

 4   he was not served with divorce papers in light of the fact that he submitted the

 5   divorce decree and did not explain why he was unaware of that document. See

6    Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than

7    offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he

8    must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his

9    testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

10         Given the inconsistency about the divorce, his lack of corroboration further

11   undermined his claim. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)

12   (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on

13   credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant

14   unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question.”). A

15   2010 letter from his attorney mentioned the divorce, but not the arrest, charges, or

16   detention; he did not provide letters from his family, documentation of his arrest

17   or charges, or evidence of tribal membership; and a 2010 State Department report

18   for Mauritania states that high level tribes and clans dominate business and

                                              5
 1   government, but these tribes have intermarried with other lower-level groups for

 2   centuries, suggesting that inter-tribal marriages are common.

 3         Given the inconsistency and the lack of evidence to corroborate the past

 4   harm, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. See

 5   Likai Gao, 968 F.3d at 145 n.8; Biao Yang, 496 F.3d at 273. The adverse credibility

 6   determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief

 7   because all three forms of relief are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul

 8   v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).

 9         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

10   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

11                                          FOR THE COURT:
12                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
13                                          Clerk of Court

                                               6