Case: 19-60537 Document: 00515746851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 17, 2021
No. 19-60537
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Mohammed Alamin,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A 216 612 772
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mohammed Alamin, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying asylum, withholding of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60537 Document: 00515746851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2021
No. 19-60537
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the
following reasons, the petition for review is denied.
First, Alamin failed to show that he was substantially prejudiced by
the IJ’s failure to provide him with additional time to submit documents or
to accept late-submitted documents. To prevail on a due process claim, an
alien must establish a fundamental procedural error and make an initial
showing of substantial prejudice by demonstrating that the alleged error
affected the outcome of the proceedings. Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965,
971 (5th Cir. 2018). The IJ did not find that Alamin lacked credibility due to
missing corroborating documents, but rather, due to the numerous
inconsistencies in Alamin’s statements throughout the immigration
proceedings. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the alleged error had any
affect on the outcome of the proceedings. See id.
Next, the IJ properly determined that Alamin lacked credibility.
Credibility determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for
substantial evidence. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-40 (5th Cir.
2009). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision (1) be
based on the evidence presented and (2) be substantially reasonable. Sharma
v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Under the substantial evidence
standard, this court may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings
unless the evidence “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be
“so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.”
Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. Alamin, who was unable to explain the numerous
inconsistencies in his account presented throughout the record, failed to
establish that the evidence compels a reversal of the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. Thus, he could not meet his burden for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir.
2005).
2
Case: 19-60537 Document: 00515746851 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2021
No. 19-60537
Additionally, a record of a credible fear interview that is not a verbatim
transcript can be sufficiently reliable to make an adverse credibility
determination. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 226 (5th Cir. 2018). The
credible fear notes at issue are sufficiently indicative of reliability. See id.
Moreover, none of Alamin’s arguments regarding the reliability of the
credible fear notes explain the many omissions and inconsistencies between
his other prior statements, applications, and testimony before the IJ.
Lastly, Alamin’s CAT claim was based on the same testimony that the
IJ found not credible. The IJ’s proper adverse credibility determination also
establishes that Alamin did not meet his burden of proof for CAT protection.
See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 659 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[B]ecause the same
lack of evidence means that Dayo cannot show he will be tortured, he is not
entitled to relief under the CAT.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3