Filed: Jul. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2020
Summary: 18-988 Rahaman v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A206 233 434 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 NOTA
Summary: 18-988 Rahaman v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A206 233 434 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 NOTAT..
More
18-988
Rahaman v. Barr
BIA
Wright, IJ
A206 233 434
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 TO 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 16th day of July, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HANIF RAHAMAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-988
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Claire L. Workman, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Nelle M.
28 Seymour, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Hanif Rahaman, a native and citizen of
9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 16, 2018, decision of the
10 BIA affirming a June 13, 2017, decision of an Immigration
11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding
12 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Hanif Rahaman, No. A 206 233 434 (B.I.A. Mar.
14 16, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 233 434 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June
15 13, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
18 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of
19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
21 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei
22 Gao v. Sessions,
891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering
23 the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,
24 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the
2
1 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . ,
2 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and
3 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such
4 statement, the consistency of such statements with other
5 evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an
6 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
7 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
9 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
10 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
11 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin
12 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei
13
Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence supports the
14 agency’s determination that Rahaman was not credible as to
15 his claim that he was persecuted on account of his membership
16 in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”).
17 The agency reasonably relied on several inconsistencies
18 within Rahaman’s statements and between his statements and
19 documentary evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Hong
20 Fei
Gao, 891 F.3d at 77. As the IJ found, Rahaman’s
21 statements and evidence concerning alleged attacks by the
22 Awami League reflected inconsistencies about where he was
23 attacked, what his injuries were, who was present during each
3
1 attack, and who reported the attacks to the police. For
2 instance, in his statement in support of his asylum
3 application, Rahaman described an October 2012 attack as one
4 in which he was beaten with rods and sticks resulting in
5 bruising. He claimed he took over-the-counter medication, and
6 that his party leaders reported the attack to the police on
7 his behalf. In contrast, during cross-examination, Rahaman
8 testified that the attack occurred at a BNP meeting, that
9 fellow BNP members were helping him hang posters, that he
10 suffered a broken nose requiring hospitalization, and that he
11 went to the police himself.
12 These inconsistencies regarding material aspects of his
13 alleged persecution constituted substantial evidence for the
14 agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xian Tuan
15 Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006)
16 (holding that “material inconsistency in an aspect of [the]
17 story that served as an example of the very persecution from
18 which [petitioner] sought asylum . . . afforded substantial
19 evidence to support the adverse credibility finding”
20 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). The agency
21 was not required to credit Rahaman’s explanations that he
22 forgot to include information in his application and that he
23 did not review all of his corroborating documents since the
4
1 explanations did not resolve any inconsistencies. See Majidi
2 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner
3 must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his
4 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate
5 that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit
6 his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
7 Moreover, Rahaman’s omissions were not minor. Rather, they
8 concerned one of the most serious incidents of alleged
9 persecution.
10 The agency also reasonably relied on multiple
11 inconsistencies between Rahaman’s testimony and his
12 supporting letters. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). While
13 testifying, Rahaman stated that he was familiar with the
14 contents of his supporting letters and that he had reviewed
15 them in his native language prior to the hearing. But his
16 description of individuals who submitted letters and their
17 connection to his attacks greatly differed from the
18 information in the letters. For example, Rahaman testified
19 that Amdur Rahim was a local man who may have witnessed one
20 of his beatings, but also testified that they never engaged
21 in any political activities together and that he did not
22 recall whether Rahim ever supported the BNP. In marked
23 contrast, Rahim’s letter states he was an active BNP party
5
1 member and that he distributed BNP leaflets alongside
2 Rahaman during one of Rahaman’s attacks. Considering the
3 inconsistencies between Rahaman’s testimony and the
4 documentary evidence, the agency reasonably found that his
5 corroborating evidence failed to rehabilitate his testimony.
6 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)
7 (“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony
8 may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration
9 in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate
10 testimony that has already been called into question.”); see
11 also Y.C. v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We
12 defer to the agency’s determination of the weight afforded to
13 an alien’s documentary evidence.”).
14 Finally, the adverse credibility determination is
15 bolstered by the IJ’s demeanor finding. “[W]e give
16 particular deference to [credibility determinations] that are
17 based on the adjudicator’s observation of the applicant’s
18 demeanor,” particularly “where, as here, [the observations]
19 are supported by specific examples of inconsistent
20 testimony.” Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
453 F.3d
21 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). Contrary to Rahaman’s position, the
22 hearing transcript reflects Rahaman’s long pauses after he
23 was confronted with the inconsistencies in his application,
6
1 as well as his subsequent unresponsive answers.
2 Given the inconsistencies between his statements and
3 between his testimony and the documentary evidence, as well
4 as the demeanor finding, the “totality of the circumstances,”
5 supports the adverse credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin,
6 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
7 That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
8 removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief are
9 based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
10
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
13 stays VACATED.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
16 Clerk of Court
7
