17-378
Ahmed v. Whitaker
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A200 237 468
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 25th day of January, two thousand nineteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
JON O. NEWMAN,
GUIDO CALABRESI,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
FAEZ AHMED,
Petitioner,
v. 17-378
NAC
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Salim Sheikh, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob
A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Faez Ahmed, a native and citizen of
Bangladesh, seeks review of a January 9, 2017 decision of the
BIA affirming a February 29, 2016 decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) denying Ahmed’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Faez Ahmed, No. A 200 237 468
(B.I.A. Jan. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 237 468 (Immig. Ct.
N.Y. City Feb. 29, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case,
and the issues under review.
Under the circumstances of Ahmed’s petition, we have
considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake
of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
First, we conclude that the agency reasonably relied on
the record from Ahmed’s credible fear interview. Although,
2
“adverse credibility determinations based on ‘discrepancies’
with a credible fear interview should be examined with care,”
Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 180-81 (2d Cir.
2004)), “[w]here the record of a credible fear interview
displays the hallmarks of reliability, it appropriately can
be considered in assessing an alien’s credibility,” id.
The agency here reasonably found that the record from
Ahmed’s interview displayed such hallmarks. For example, the
interview was conducted with an interpreter that Ahmed did
not object to, Ahmed affirmatively declined to have an
attorney present, a paralegal from Ahmed’s attorney’s office
monitored the hearing, the interview was memorialized in a
typed document in question and answer format, the questions
posed were designed to elicit details of Ahmed’s asylum claim,
and Ahmed’s responses indicated that he understood the
questions. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 724-25. We also note
that Ahmed’s counsel did not object to the immigration judge’s
reliance on the interview record. Certified Admin. Rec. at
133 (“I don’t have any objection”).
Accordingly, we conclude, second, that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ahmed was
3
not credible as to his claim that the Awami League attacked
him six times for his work with the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party (“BNP”). The agency reasonably found that Ahmed’s
statements at his credible fear interview were inconsistent
with his testimony regarding when the Awami League first beat
him and what happened during an alleged October 2010 attack.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Ahmed did not compellingly
explain these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than
offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements
to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal
quotations omitted)).
The agency also reasonably relied on Ahmed’s internally
inconsistent testimony about a foot injury he claims he
sustained during an alleged April 2010 attack. On direct
examination, Ahmed said he was cut on his right foot but then
changed his answer to his left foot. On cross-examination,
Ahmed first said that his left foot was cut, but then said
that his right foot was cut. And, while Ahmed’s original
written statement listed a cut to his left foot, he later
revised it to reflect a cut to his right foot. See 8 U.S.C.
4
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64; see
also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A]
single false document or a single instance of false testimony
may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of
the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence . . .
And where an IJ’s finding of fabrication (supported by
substantial evidence) serves as a basis for discrediting
other evidence, a reviewing court is in no position to
conclude that the discrediting of the remaining evidence is
unsupported by substantial evidence.”).
Third, we conclude that the agency reasonably determined
that Ahmed failed to rehabilitate his testimony with reliable
corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to
corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,
because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
been called into question.”). Among other things, the agency
did not err in declining to afford significant weight to
various written statements Ahmed submitted because the
authors were not available for cross-examination. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324,
5
334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s decision to afford
little weight to relative’s letter because it was unsworn and
from an interested witness).
Finally, given Ahmed’s inconsistent statements and lack
of reliable corroboration, the agency correctly concluded
that its adverse credibility determination was dispositive of
Ahmed’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
applications because all three were based on the same factual
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, Ahmed’s petition for review
is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6