Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 1 of 29
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11128
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A070-787-916
BARKAT KARIM BHAI,
MINAZ BARKAT MAKNOJIA BHAI,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 28, 2014)
Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 2 of 29
Barkat Bhai and his wife Minaz Bhai (“Minaz”), natives and citizens of
Pakistan, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final removal order. After review, we
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. Illegal Entry and State Conviction
In 1991, Bhai entered the United States without inspection. In 1992, Bhai
was convicted in California state court of the misdemeanor offense of “annoy[ing]
and molest[ing] a child” and was sentenced to a suspended 180-day jail term,
followed by three years of probation.
B. 1993 Asylum Application
In May 1993, Bhai filed an asylum application claiming political persecution
based on his membership in the Mohajir Quomii Mahaz (“MQM”) party. In his
asylum application, Bhai said that “workers of IJI [a]nd other groups and
professional men hired by the politicians manhandled [him] several times,” and
they would approach him while he was having tea in a snack shop, spit in his tea,
and throw sand in his food. Bhai also recounted an incident in which the police
jailed him for ten days after he fought with a police officer’s son, as follows:
Once Rehmat[,] that is the son of the police officer in charge[,] was
beating me with a stick[;] in self-defense I wrestled with him and we
fell on a hard surface[,] injuring both of us. The police threw me in
jail for 10 days.
2
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 3 of 29
No decision was rendered on the 1993 application, however, because, according to
Bhai, he did not attend the asylum interview.
C. 1995 to 2005
In June 1995, Minaz entered the United States without inspection and
married Bhai a few weeks later. The Bhais moved to Georgia, where they had
three children, and Bhai worked as a convenience store manager.
C. 2005 Application for Adjustment of Status and 2006 Interview
In 2005, Bhai filed an I-485 application for adjustment of status seeking
permanent residence based on his approved I-140 petition. 1 On the application,
Bhai checked the “No” box in response to the question, “Have you ever, in or
outside the U.S. . . . been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, fined, or imprisoned
for breaking or violating any law or ordinance, excluding traffic violations?” Bhai
signed the application under penalty of perjury.
After an interview in 2006, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(“USCIS”) denied Bhai’s adjustment application in 2009 because Bhai: (1) failed
to register as a sex offender in Georgia; (2) did not accurately respond to questions
on his application concerning his criminal history; and (3) told the interviewing
USCIS officer that he had never been arrested or convicted. USCIS also revoked
Bhai’s alien worker status.
1
In 2004, Bhai’s employer had filed an I-140 petition for alien worker status on Bhai’s
behalf, which was approved.
3
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 4 of 29
E. Commencement of Removal Proceedings
Soon after, in July 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
initiated removal proceedings against both Bhai and Miraz, and later their cases
were consolidated. DHS initially sought Bhai’s expedited removal based on his
prior conviction. In September 2009, however, Bhai’s conviction was vacated.
Ultimately, DHS charged both Bhai and Miraz with being removable under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as aliens who were present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled, and charged Bhai with being
inadmissible, pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), as an
alien who, by fraud or willful misrepresentation, had sought to procure an
immigration benefit.
F. 2009 Applications for Asylum, Adjustment of Status, and Cancellation
of Removal
In October 2009, Bhai filed a second application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief, claiming persecution based on his political opinion.
Bhai’s 2009 asylum application claimed that he was persecuted in Pakistan by
members of the Pakistan People’s Party (“PPP”) because he was an MQM
member. 2
2
Bhai’s wife, Minaz, was included in his 2009 applications for adjustment of status and
asylum as a derivative beneficiary. Although our opinion refers to Bhai, our holding as to the
asylum and CAT claims apply equally to his wife. We deny Minaz’s withholding of removal
4
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 5 of 29
According to Bhai’s 2009 asylum application, he became an active member
of the MQM beginning in 1987 or 1988, and attended rallies, made banners, and
“assisted with party communications, advertising, and other organizational
efforts.” After the MQM lost the 1988 elections and the PPP came to power, PPP
members harassed, tortured, and killed MQM members. Bhai said that PPP
members followed him on multiple occasions and that, once, PPP members spit in
his tea and threw sand in his food while he was eating at a hotel.
In addition, Bhai claimed that, in 1990, he “was arrested by the police at
[his] home” and “detained in jail for 10 days,” although he was “never formally
charged.” While detained, Bhai was “beaten, punched, kicked, and [he] lost
consciousness,” Bhai was also “not given any food.” Bhai claimed that “[t]he
police knew that [he] was a member of MQM because they had seen [him] at
multiple MQM rallies.”
Bhai’s asylum application stated that, “[a]fter [he] was released from jail,
[he] was monitored and harassed by PPP supporters.” Twice PPP supporters
“grabbed [Bhai’s] scooter from behind when [he] was in an alley,” but Bhai
managed to escape each time. Bhai hid indoors until he left for the United States
in 1991.
claim because “there are no derivative benefits associated with the grant of withholding of
removal.” See Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir. 2007). Minaz also filed
her own applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, which were denied.
The petition for review does not challenge those rulings.
5
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 6 of 29
Bhai’s application alleged that in 1997, the PPP were looking for him, but
found Bhai’s uncle and “tortured him to give [Bhai’s] address.” When Bhai’s
uncle did not give an address, the PPP “shot him to death.” The PPP then
“harassed [Bhai’s] dad,” who Bhai said was “too old to bear the mistreatment
everyday,” and “passed away with a severe heart attack in 2004.” The PPP “keep
inquiring about [Bhai] from [his family] members who have to change their
addresses.”
Bhai also submitted affidavits from his mother and his cousin, Rahim, from
Karachi, Pakistan. Bhai’s mother stated that she was present when Bhai “was
detained by police officials who supported the People’s party movement.” After
ten days, she secured Bhai’s release and took him to the hospital for treatment.
Bhai’s mother stated that, after Bhai’s release, men kept coming to her house,
harassing her and her family, and trying to discover Bhai’s hiding place. The men
also harassed Bhai’s father and uncle, and Bhai’s uncle was “shot on the road in
1997.” The harassment caused Bhai’s father significant stress, which resulted in a
fatal heart attack. Bhai’s mother stated that the PPP is “still looking to find
[Bhai’s] current location so that they can kill him.”
Bhai’s cousin Rahim stated that Bhai and his uncle had owned a shop
together in Karachi and that a “strong political group” caused Bhai to flee the
country in 1991. The political group repeatedly looted the shop and threatened to
6
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 7 of 29
kill them if they filed a police report. Rahim said that, on September 27, 1997, the
political group “shot dead” Bhai’s uncle “in the shop.” Further, the political group
continues to harass and threaten Bhai’s family. As a result Bhai’s family,
including Rahim, is forced to “shift their houses” from time to time to protect
themselves.
In 2009, Bhai also filed a second application for adjustment of status based
on his previously approved application for a labor certification. On that
application, Bhai checked the “Yes” box when asked whether he had ever been
arrested for breaking the law and cited his 1992 conviction that was vacated in
2009. The same day, Bhai also filed an application for cancellation of removal
based on the hardship to his U.S.-born children.
G. 2009 Credible Fear Interview
In 2009, Bhai attended a credible fear interview with an asylum officer.
Bhai stated that, in 1990, the police arrested him and detained him for ten days.
According to Bhai, the local, uniformed police came to his home, dragged him out
and “put [him in] jail, beat [him] up, didn’t give [him] any food.” Bhai stated that
they sometimes beat him and kicked him until he was unconscious.
After his mother secured Bhai’s release, Bhai had “small problems” when he
encountered the PPP in alleys while riding his scooter, but he “got away.” Bhai
stopped going out. Bhai had no further problems with the police, but said the
7
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 8 of 29
police “hover[ed] around” his house for about a month after his release. Bhai
claimed that “the police and PP members are all looking for [him],” and he feared
the police and the PPP would kill him if he returned to Pakistan. Bhai stated that
MQM members were still targeted and the PPP either “do it themselves or they get
it done through the police.”
Bhai stated that his uncle “was okay” until 1992, when PPP members found
out that he was Bhai’s uncle. The PPP made inquiries of Bhai’s uncle and
threatened and harassed him, and in 1997, the PPP killed him.
After Bhai’s uncle was killed, Bhai’s father took over his brother’s (Bhai’s
uncle’s) shop. Two or three times a week, PPP members would come to the shop
and threaten Bhai’s father. The PPP members said that what had happened to his
brother would happen to him and his family and that they would find his son
(Bhai) and beat him up. Bhai’s father “was always in fear, he was moving from
place to place.” Bhai said that his family in Pakistan has “stayed in hiding” and
has “tried to stay away from the PPP or the police.”
H. IJ Hearing in 2011
On February 3, 2011, an IJ held a consolidated hearing on removability and
the merits of each of Bhai’s applications for relief. Bhai and Minaz admitted the
allegations regarding, and conceded removability based on, the charge that they
were present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. However,
8
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 9 of 29
Bhai contested the additional charge that he was inadmissible under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), because he had misrepresented his
criminal history when he applied for adjustment of status in 2005.
The IJ heard testimony from Bhai, Minaz, and Officer Richard Lee, the
USCIS line adjudicator who conducted Bhai’s 2006 adjustment of status interview.
All three witnesses agreed that at the interview Officer Lee asked Bhai (at least
twice) whether he had been arrested or convicted and that Bhai answered “no.”
Officer Lee had no independent recollection of the 2006 interview, but
testified that he knew from his general practice and the marks he had made on the
adjustment application that he had asked Bhai about his criminal history. Lee
maintained that Bhai did not tell him about the conviction during the interview
because Lee would have made a note on the adjustment application about it and
then would have had Bhai initial the notation.
Bhai testified that he answered “no” to Lee’s question during the 2006
interview because he did not speak English well at that time and had not
understood the words “arrest” or “conviction.” However, Bhai said that, when Lee
showed him a copy of his 1992 conviction, Bhai had explained to Lee that he had
not understood the question and had not meant to lie. Bhai explained that he
thought “no” was the correct answer to Officer Lee’s question because he only
went to jail once for one or two hours, he had not “done any crime,” and he “did
9
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 10 of 29
not go in the jail several times.” On cross-examination, Bhai stated that he
answered “no” to Lee’s question because he “thought that this is over” and he had
“finished the procedure of the court and . . . the case was over.” When Bhai was
asked for his understanding of the word “arrest” at the time of his interview, Bhai
insisted that he was “not a criminal.” The government asked the IJ to instruct Bhai
to answer the question. The IJ stated, “We’ve asked him several time[s]. He’s not
answering the questions.”
With respect to his 2005 adjustment application, Bhai stated that his prior
attorney had completed the application for him and never asked him about his
criminal history. Bhai maintained that he did not know the application included a
question about his criminal history.
After this evidence, the IJ sustained the fraud-based charge of
inadmissibility against Bhai, finding Officer Lee “far more credible than” Bhai and
Bhai’s “story somewhat implausible.” The IJ’s ruling rendered Bhai ineligible for
adjustment of status and cancellation of removal.
The IJ then heard testimony on Bhai’s asylum application. Bhai testified
that he had been an active member of the MQM in Pakistan and organized and
oversaw MQM rallies in Karachi. After the PPP came to power, its member began
kidnapping, beating, and killing MQM members.
10
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 11 of 29
About nine months before Bhai came to the United States, five or six men
dressed as police officers entered his home, took him away in a car, and kept him
in a darkened house, where he was beaten and given food fit only for a dog. After
ten days, his mother secured his release with the help of members of the
community. Once released, Bhai was hospitalized for ten days. He then went into
hiding, moving from one relative’s home to another until he left for the United
States. Bhai said that his uncle was killed by the PPP in 1997 and that Bhai feared
the PPP would kill him if he returned to Pakistan.
On cross-examination, the government read from Bhai’s 1993 asylum
application, in which he stated that the police threw him in jail for ten days because
he got into a fight with the police chief’s son. The government then asked Bhai to
explain the inconsistencies between his 1993 asylum application and his hearing
testimony. Bhai stated that he had not understood English, as follows:
[Bhai]: I don’t understand why people always think that I
(indiscernible), because I don’t understand in English what is it.
[Government]: Okay. But, sir, your asylum application also refers
to your MQM membership. Weren’t you a member of MQM?
[Bhai]: Yes, it is right.
[Government]: And what about the activities listed in your asylum
application regarding your day-to-day activities with the party, aren’t
those details correct?
....
11
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 12 of 29
[Bhai]: Yes.
[Government]: Okay. But you’re saying the part about your actual
arrest in Pakistan is not correct?
[Bhai]: I didn’t understand.
[Government]: So it’s your contention that all of the information in
this asylum application from 1993 related to your detention is not
correct?
[Bhai]: I don’t know where (indiscernible).
....
[Government]: So there’s also no mention in this asylum
application of a ten-day hospital stay. How do you explain that?
[Bhai]: I don’t know why (indiscernible). Looks like he didn’t
ask me.
Bhai also admitted that his mother and brother continued to live in Pakistan and
had not been arrested, detained, or tortured. Bhai also admitted that his uncle was
not an MQM member. Bhai said that his uncle was killed solely because he knew
Bhai and that the PPP killed him as he drove away on a scooter.
The IJ then showed Bhai the transcript of his 2009 credible fear interview, in
which Bhai stated that local police had taken him for ten days. The IJ asked Bhai
whether he knew in 2009 that the men were not in fact police. Bhai responded that
he was “now so confused” as to whether they were the police “or somebody in the
police dress.” Bhai said the men were dressed as the police, but took him to a
house rather than the police station, which “means that they were not police.”
12
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 13 of 29
I. IJ’s Decision
In his oral decision, the IJ found Bhai removable under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled. The IJ further found that Bhai was also
removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), as an alien
who by fraud or willful misrepresentation sought to procure an immigration
benefit.
The IJ found that Bhai’s “testimony concerning the misrepresentation is not
credible,” and gave “greater credence to the testimony of Donald Lee.” In support
of his credibility determination, the IJ noted that Bhai’s testimony that his attorney
filled out the adjustment application without asking Bhai relevant questions about
his criminal record “seem[ed] somewhat implausible.” The IJ further stressed that
Bhai had not submitted any documents from his prior attorney to corroborate his
claim or filed a complaint against his prior attorney with the bar.
The IJ also found Bhai’s testimony about his ability to understand English
“to be somewhat evasive” and found that Bhai’s explanation that he did not know
the meaning of the words “arrest” and “conviction” “to be without credence.” The
IJ noted that Bhai was educated and that the words were not complicated. The IJ
found it implausible that Bhai did not understand the words “arrest” and
“conviction” given that he had been living in the United States for fifteen years at
13
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 14 of 29
the time of his adjustment interview and he had, in fact, been arrested and
convicted in California. Further, Bhai never explained what he understood the
words “arrest” and “conviction” to mean and his demeanor when answering
questions about his understanding of those words was evasive. The IJ also found it
implausible that Bhai would have answered “no” in the adjustment interview if he
did not fully understand the meaning of the word arrest.
In light of the IJ’s findings that Bhai misrepresented his criminal history in
his 2005 adjustment application and in his 2006 adjustment interview, the IJ
concluded that Bhai was inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), and thus was ineligible for adjustment of status and
cancellation of removal.
The IJ denied Bhai’s application for asylum and withholding of removal
because Bhai “ha[d] not met his threshold burden of presenting credible and
consistent evidence and documents in support of his application.” The IJ pointed
out that Bhai’s 2011 hearing testimony about his ten-day detention in Pakistan was
inconsistent with Bhai’s statement in his original 1993 asylum application, his
mother’s statement in support of Bhai’s 2010 asylum application, and his 2009
credible fear interview. Specifically, at the 2011 hearing, Bhai claimed that the
men who took him from his mother’s home and detained him for ten days were
merely dressed as police officers, but were not in fact police. However, Bhai’s
14
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 15 of 29
2009 asylum application, his 2009 credible fear statement, and his mother’s 2010
affidavit all identified the men as real police officers who were supporters of the
PPP. The IJ concluded that this was “a significant discrepancy” that went “to the
heart of [Bhai’s] claim that he was detained in Pakistan for about ten days.” The IJ
also noted that Bhai did not mention hospitalization at his credible fear interview.
The IJ identified several implausibilities in Bhai’s claim. Specifically, the IJ
found it implausible that: (1) the PPP did not bother Bhai’s family in Pakistan for
seven years after Bhai left, but then killed Bhai’s uncle as retaliation against Bhai;
(2) Bhai’s father then “place[d] himself in harm’s way” by taking over the uncle’s
store, where the PPP had come looking for Bhai and had killed the uncle; and (3)
neither the PPP’s ten-day detention of Bhai in 1990 nor the PPP’s killing of Bhai’s
uncle in 1997 was ever reported to the Pakistan police. Based on the forgoing, the
IJ found that Bhai had “not met his burden of presenting a credible, consistent,
plausible and believable account of his claim,” and denied his claim on that basis.
Alternatively, the IJ denied Bhai’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims “on the merits.” The IJ concluded that Bhai had failed to show past
persecution by the Pakistani government or a group that the government was
unwilling or unable to control. The IJ noted that Bhai did not present any evidence
that the men who targeted him worked for the government. Instead, Bhai claimed
that his harassers were private individuals associated with the PPP. And, as Bhai
15
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 16 of 29
never made the government aware that these men sought to harm him, he did not
show the government could not control them.
The IJ also found that Bhai failed to establish that he had a well-founded
fear of persecution. The IJ pointed out that (1) Bhai had not shown he could not
relocate within Pakistan to avoid harm, (2) Bhai’s father had continued to live in
Pakistan unharmed, and (3) given Bhai’s “less than important role” in the MQM,
Bhai had not explained why anyone in Pakistan would want to harm him 21 years
after he left Pakistan.
Because Bhai was not eligible for asylum, the IJ concluded that Bhai was
also ineligible for withholding of removal. The IJ also found that Bhai had failed
to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to
Pakistan, and thus, he was not entitled to CAT relief.
J. BIA Appeal
In his appeal to the BIA, Bhai argued that the IJ had erred in finding that: (1)
he was inadmissible because he misrepresented his criminal history in his 2005
adjustment application and interview; and (2) he had not established eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal based on past or future political persecution.
The BIA affirmed the IJ and dismissed Bhai’s appeal. With respect to
Bhai’s inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i),
the BIA concluded that the IJ did not clearly err in finding Bhai’s testimony not
16
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 17 of 29
credible and in giving greater credence to Lee’s testimony. Because Bhai was
inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), and was
not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility, the BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of
Bhai’s application for adjustment of status.
With respect to Bhai’s asylum claim, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. The BIA noted some of the inconsistencies between
Bhai’s 2011 hearing testimony, his 1993 and 2009 asylum applications, and his
statements during his 2009 credible fear interview. At his hearing, Bhai testified
that he was detained by men dressed in police uniforms, but that he later learned
they were not actually police officers. In contrast, in his credible fear interview,
Bhai referred to the men as police. In her affidavit in support of Bhai’s 2009
asylum application, Bhai’s mother also had said that the men were police. The
BIA also pointed out that in his 1993 asylum application, Bhai said that the police
jailed him because he had fought with the police chief’s son. As had the IJ, the
BIA concluded that these inconsistencies went to the heart of Bhai’s claim because
they involved both the identity of his captors and the events that led to his
detention.
In addition, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that some of Bhai’s testimony
was implausible, specifically noting Bhai’s testimony that his uncle was killed by
men who were looking for Bhai. The BIA questioned the fact that seven years had
17
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 18 of 29
passed without incident between Bhai’s 1990 detention and his uncle’s death in
1997. The BIA agreed that it was implausible that Bhai’s father would knowingly
place himself in harm’s way by taking over the uncle’s shop and also that Bhai’s
father would not then be harmed by the same men who had killed his uncle and
were reportedly still looking for Bhai. Finally, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s finding
that Bhai’s testimony was evasive and non-responsive.
The BIA also concluded that Bhai had failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future persecution because: (1) Bhai did not sufficiently corroborate his
claim that his uncle was killed by people looking for Bhai; and (2) Bhai did not
show why anyone in the Pakistan government would be interested in him more
than twenty years after his departure and fifteen years after his uncle’s death,
particularly given that Bhai’s family remained in Pakistan unharmed.
Given that Bhai had not established asylum eligibility, the BIA concluded
that Bhai also failed to meet the higher evidentiary burden for withholding of
removal. It further concluded that Bhai had not demonstrated entitlement to CAT
relief because he had not shown that he more likely than not would be tortured in
Pakistan. The Bhais filed this petition for review.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Bhai’s Inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i)
18
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 19 of 29
Under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), “[a]ny alien who,
by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure . . . a visa,
other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided
under [the INA] is inadmissible.” Where an alien is charged with inadmissibility,
he has the burden of proving that he is “clearly and beyond doubt entitled to
admission, and that he [is] not inadmissible under any of the grounds enumerated
in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).” Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1345-46 (11th
Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted); see also INA § 240(c)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(2)(A). 3 To qualify for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i), 8
U.S.C. § 1255(i), an alien must be “admissible” to the United States. See INA
§ 245(i)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A). 4
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision to sustain the fraud-based
charge of inadmissibility against Bhai and therefore deny his application for
adjustment of status. It is undisputed that in 1993 Bhai was arrested and convicted
in California of a crime, that Bhai inaccurately stated under oath on his 2005
3
There is no merit to Bhai’s argument that the BIA improperly applied the clearly
erroneous standard of review in affirming the IJ’s finding of inadmissibility under INA
§ 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). The BIA’s decision explicitly states that it
reviewed “whether the parties met the relevant burden of proof . . . under the de novo standard.”
4
We review findings of fact and credibility determinations made in removal proceedings
under the substantial evidence test. Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 546 n.12 (11th Cir.
2011). “The substantial evidence test requires reversal of factual findings only if the evidence
presented compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the
BIA affirms and explicitly agrees with the IJ’s findings, we review the decisions of both the IJ
and the BIA as to those issues. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010).
19
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 20 of 29
adjustment application that he had never been arrested and convicted, and that Bhai
repeated that false assertion to Officer Lee during the 2006 adjustment interview.
Although Bhai testified that he did not intend to deceive and merely misunderstood
the question, the IJ found Bhai’s testimony incredible.
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that
Officer Lee was credible, but Bhai was not. The IJ’s reasons for discrediting Bhai
included Bhai’s evasive demeanor, the implausibility of his account, and the lack
of corroborating evidence in support of his testimony. The record reflects that,
although Bhai testified that he misunderstood the words “arrest” and “conviction,”
he refused to give clear answers as to his understanding of those words. Bhai also
failed to account for his ability to respond accurately to other questions of equal
complexity during the 2006 interview, on his adjustment application, or on his
1993 asylum application, when his language skills presumably would have been
even more limited. Bhai’s claim that he misunderstood the words “arrest” and
“conviction” is particularly suspect given that he was actually arrested and
convicted.
Bhai placed much of the blame on his prior attorney. For instance, Bhai said
that his prior attorney completed his adjustment application without asking Bhai
about his criminal history and refused Bhai’s request for a translator at the
20
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 21 of 29
adjustment interview. However, Bhai did not submit any corroborating evidence
from his prior attorney and did not file a bar complaint against his attorney.
There is no merit to Bhai’s contention that his retraction during the interview
is evidence of his lack of intent to deceive. First, according to Officer Lee’s
credited testimony, Officer Lee was unaware of Bhai’s conviction during the
interview. Officer Lee explained that he would have noted on the adjustment
paperwork if Bhai had admitted to the arrest or conviction during the interview and
would have had Bhai initial the notation. Officer Lee’s adjustment paperwork did
not contain such a notation. Thus, under Officer Lee’s credited version of events,
corroborated by the adjustment paperwork, Bhai did not make a retraction during
the interview. In any event, even if Bhai’s claimed retraction were credited, it does
not compel reversal because Bhai admitted he only retracted his false answer after
Officer Lee showed him the conviction record.
As the BIA noted, the IJ could have conceivably weighed the evidence
differently, and accepted Bhai’s version of events. However, that possibility does
not compel a reversal. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th
Cir. 2006) (explaining that the mere fact that the record may support a contrary
conclusion is not enough to justify reversal of the agency’s findings). In sum,
substantial evidence supports the finding that Bhai willfully misrepresented his
21
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 22 of 29
criminal history in an attempt to procure a benefit under the INA, i.e., adjustment
of his status to lawful permanent residence.
B. Bhai’s Asylum and Withholding of Removal Claims
To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must show, with credible,
direct, and specific evidence, either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. INA §§ 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1), INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Forgue v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b).
Similarly, to be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant
must show that it is more likely than not that he has been or will be persecuted on
account of one of the five protected grounds. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005).
Because this standard is more stringent than the standard for asylum, an alien who
fails to establish asylum eligibility generally cannot satisfy the higher burden for
withholding of removal. Id. at 1232-33. 5
If the IJ finds an asylum applicant not credible, the IJ must make an explicit
adverse credibility finding and offer “specific, cogent reasons” for the finding.
5
We review the factual determinations that an alien is ineligible for asylum and
withholding of removal under the “highly deferential” substantial evidence test. Al Najjar v.
Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2001).
22
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 23 of 29
Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287 (quotation marks omitted). “Indications of reliable
testimony include consistency on direct examination, consistency with the written
application, and the absence of embellishments.” Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1255. “Once
an adverse credibility finding is made, the burden is on the applicant alien to show
that the IJ’s credibility determination was not supported by ‘specific, cogent
reasons’ or was not based on substantial evidence.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287.6
Although uncorroborated but credible testimony may be sufficient to
demonstrate asylum eligibility, “[t]he weaker an applicant’s testimony, . . . the
greater the need for corroborative evidence.” Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 418 F.3d
1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2005). “Conversely, an adverse credibility determination
alone may be sufficient to support the denial” of an applicant’s claim, especially if
the applicant fails to produce corroborating evidence. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at
1287.
6
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and elaborated upon some of
the IJ’s reasoning. Thus, we review the IJ’s credibility finding as supplemented by the BIA. See
Savoury v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2006). We review credibility
findings under the substantial evidence test, and “like any fact finding, [they] may not be
overturned unless the record compels it.” Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1286-87 (quotation marks
omitted). We note that the REAL ID Act of 2005 changed the INA’s standards for evaluating the
credibility of an applicant for asylum or withholding of credibility. See Pub. L. No. 109-13,
§ 101(a)(3), (c), (d)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (2005) (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii),
1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C)). Because Bhai’s application was filed before May 11, 2005,
however, the new standards do not apply to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041, 1049 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009); Pub. L. No. 109-13,
§ 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 305.
23
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 24 of 29
Here, the adverse credibility determination is supported by specific, cogent
reasons, including: (1) the inconsistencies between Bhai’s testimony and other
items of evidence; (2) the implausibility of his claim concerning his uncle’s death;
and (3) his evasive demeanor during the hearing. The record supports these bases.
For example, in his 1993 asylum application, Bhai attributed his ten-day
detention to punishment for fighting with the police chief’s son, and he stated that
the police put him in jail, rather than in a house. However, in subsequent
immigration applications and interviews, Bhai changed his account substantially,
describing the reason for his detention as his political affiliation, the men who
detained him as PPP members, and the location as a dark house. Meanwhile,
Bhai’s later accounts were inconsistent with his mother’s affidavit, in which she
identified the men as police officers. Bhai was unable to clearly reconcile these
inconsistencies before the IJ, and continued to change his answer even then,
responding at one point, for example, that perhaps the men were police. 7
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that certain aspects of
Bhai’s claim concerning his uncle’s death were implausible. Bhai testified that
PPP members killed his uncle in 1997 because they were looking for Bhai. Yet,
7
After the REAL ID Act, the INA permits an adverse credibility determination based on
inconsistencies that do not go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See INA
§ 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We need not resolve whether adverse
credibility determinations in pre-REAL ID Act cases must go to the heart of the claim, however,
because, as the BIA pointed out, Bhai’s inconsistencies regarding the reasons for his detention
and the identity of his captors go to the heart of Bhai’s claims.
24
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 25 of 29
Bhai conceded that neither he nor his family had any issues with the PPP during
the period of time after his release from detention in 1990 until he left Pakistan for
the United States in 1991. Further, his uncle’s death was the first alleged violent
act against Bhai’s family by the PPP after Bhai left, though six years had passed
without incident. And, the BIA reasonably noted that it was implausible that
Bhai’s father would expose himself to possible harm by taking over Bhai’s uncle’s
shop, or that, after having done so, the men looking for Bhai would not similarly
harm his father.
We defer to the IJ’s finding as to Bhai’s demeanor. Because an IJ “is
[uniquely] positioned to make determinations about demeanor—by observing the
alien and assessing his or her tone and appearance”—we give “great deference to
an IJ’s assessment of ‘demeanor.’” Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 1318,
1324-25 (11th Cir. 2010). Bhai has not offered any reason why we should
withhold such deference in this case.
Furthermore, apart from Bhai’s discredited testimony, none of the other
evidence compels a conclusion that Bhai suffered past persecution or has a well-
founded fear of future persecution. For example, Bhai’s only evidence that he was
an active MQM member in Pakistan is his own testimony. Beyond his own
testimony, the only evidence concerning Bhai’s ten-day detention, the basis of his
25
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 26 of 29
past persecution claim, was his mother’s affidavit, which partially contradicted his
own account.
Similarly, the only evidence corroborating Bhai’s claims concerning his
Uncle’s death were the affidavits of his mother and cousin, but these affidavits
were not wholly consistent with each other or with other evidence in the record.
Bhai’s cousin stated that Bhai’s uncle was shot and killed in his store by the
“strong political group” that harassed Bhai. Notably, the death certificate for
Bhai’s uncle indicates that his death was caused by “cardiac respiratory arrest due
to fire calm injuiry [sic]” and that Bhai’s uncle died in the hospital, not in his shop,
as claimed by Bhai’s cousin, or on the road as claimed by Bhai’s mother. Even to
the extent these affidavits support Bhai’s claims, they are not substantial enough to
compel reversal. See Yang, 418 F.3d at 1201 (explaining that when the applicant’s
testimony is weak, the need for corroborative evidence is great).
Further, although Bhai’s mother stated that PPP members continue to look
for Bhai and have come to her house and harassed her and her family, Bhai
conceded at the hearing that no one in his family has been harmed in the thirteen
years since his uncle’s death in 1997. As the BIA pointed out, the fact that Bhai’s
family has remained unharmed in Karachi, Pakistan since 1997 undermines his
mother’s assertion of potential future harm. See Ruiz, 440 F.3d at 1259
26
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 27 of 29
(concluding that an asylum applicant failed to show future persecution in part
because his family remained in the same region of Colombia without incident).
Bhai also submitted an expert report on Pakistan by Dr. Shaul Gabbay. Dr.
Gabbay opined that Bhai faces danger if returned to Pakistan given, in relevant
part, the past physical abuse Bhai suffered based on his political beliefs. Dr.
Gabbay’s opinion, however, rested on the same statements concerning Bhai’s
MQM membership and his detention by the PPP that the IJ found not credible.
Dr. Gabbay further opined that Bhai primarily risks danger from the Taliban
and religious extremists with anti-western sentiments who would view him as a
U.S. spy, a claim Bhai has never raised. Dr. Gabbay also stated that there has been
political violence between two competing factions of the MQM—the MQM-H and
the MQM-A. However, Bhai has never claimed to be a member of either of these
factions or to fear harm from either of them. Dr. Gabbay’s report did not mention
any political violence between the PPP and the MQM, which is the basis for Bhai’s
particular persecution claims. Thus, Dr. Gabbay’s report is not persuasive in
assessing Bhai’s future persecution claim.
The record contains other background information about political violence
and instability in Pakistan, including: (1) the U.S. State Department’s 2008 Human
Rights Report on Pakistan, which reported extrajudicial and politically motivated
27
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 28 of 29
killings, torture, and disappearances, sometimes carried out by the police; 8 (2)
news reports of killings of MQM members by unknown perpetrators; and (3)
reports about violence between numerous political and sectarian groups in
Pakistan. However, in light of the adverse credibility determination, none of this
evidence compels the conclusion that Bhai himself would be “singled out” for
harm because of his political opinion if he returned to Pakistan. See Sepulveda,
401 F.3d at 1231 (stating that an asylum applicant must present evidence showing
“a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution”).
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Bhai failed
to establish asylum eligibility. Because Bhai could not show eligibility for asylum,
he necessarily failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for withholding of
removal. See id. at 1232-33.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we conclude the IJ properly found Bhai inadmissible due
to his willful misrepresentations in his adjustment application and interview and,
thus, ineligible for adjustment of status. We also conclude the IJ properly found
that Bhai failed to carry his burden to show he was eligible for asylum or
withholding of removal. We deny Bhai’s petition with respect to these claims.
8
The 2008 Country Report stated that that the MQM had accused Jamaat-e-Islami of
killing a number of MQM members during “ongoing violence between the two parties over
political control” of Karachi, but there was no specific mention of violence between the MQM
and the PPP.
28
Case: 13-11128 Date Filed: 01/28/2014 Page: 29 of 29
We dismiss the petition as to Bhai’s claim for CAT relief for lack of
jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust this issue in his appeal to the BIA. See
INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
29