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.,

524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review

21 are well established. See

(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei

22 Gao v. Sessions,

(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

(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,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

13 Gao,

. 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

(b)(1)(B)(iii); Hong

20 Fei Gao,

. 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.,

(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,

(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.

(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,

(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,

(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,

(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

(quoting

(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

(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