20-2727 Ali v. Garland BIA Bither, IJ A088 015 332 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 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 15th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOHAMMED NOOR ALI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2727 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anna E. Juarez, 1 Senior Litigation Counsel; James 2 A. Hurley, Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC.

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Mohammed Noor Ali, a native and citizen of

11 Bangladesh, seeks review of a July 20, 2020, decision of the

12 BIA affirming an April 25, 2018, decision of an Immigration

13 Judge (“IJ”) denying his claim of withholding of removal. 1

14 In re Mohammed Noor Ali, No. A 088 015 332 (B.I.A. July 20,

15 2020), aff’g No. A 088 015 332 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 25,

16 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

17 underlying facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

19 BIA, and because the BIA based its affirmance only on the

20 IJ’s adverse credibility determination, our review is limited

1 The BIA considered only withholding of removal because we previously remanded the case only as to withholding of removal, finding that we lacked jurisdiction to review Ali’s unexhausted challenges to the denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Ali v. Holder,

, 66–67 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order). 2 1 to that issue. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

2

(2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse

3 credibility determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong

4 Fei Gao v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018), and treat

5 the agency’s findings of fact as conclusive “unless any

6 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

7 contrary,”

(b)(4)(B). The IJ may,

8 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances” base a

9 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an applicant’s

10 statements or between his statements and other evidence,

11 “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or

12 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8

(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also

1231(b)(3)(C) (incorporating § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), which

15 governs asylum claims, into the standard for withholding of

16 removal claims). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s adverse

17 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

18 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

19 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

20 v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei

21 Gao,

. Substantial evidence supports the

3 1 adverse credibility determination.

2 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies

3 regarding Ali’s identity, his entry date, and the year of an

4 alleged arrest. The record supports the agency’s finding

5 that Ali failed to establish his identity because he presented

6 three birth certificates, one with the name “Noor Ali Sumon,”

7 and two with “Mohammed Noor Ali,” but he did not provide an

8 authenticated birth certificate to resolve the issue, and he

9 offered various contradictory explanations for the

10 inconsistent documents. See Majidi v. Gonzalez,

,

11 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a

12 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to

13 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-

14 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal

15 quotation marks omitted)).

16 The record also supports the agency’s finding of

17 inconsistencies relating to Ali’s date of entry to the United

18 States and the date of an arrest in Bangladesh. Ali admitted

19 the allegation in the notice to appear that he entered in

20 January 2004, but testified to entering the United States in

21 April or December 2005. The agency reasonably relied on this

4 1 inconsistency, which calls into question whether Ali was in

2 Bangladesh at the time of the alleged incidents of

3 persecution. For example, he testified that he was arrested

4 in Bangladesh in May 2004. Ali did not resolve this

5 inconsistency with corroborating evidence, either at his

6 first hearing or on remand. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496

(2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to

8 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,

9 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an

10 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already

11 been called into question.”); see also Chuilu Liu v. Holder,

12

(2d Cir. 2009) (holding that the applicant

13 “bears the ultimate burden” to submit corroborating evidence

14 “without prompting from the IJ”). Moreover, some of his

15 written statements and corroborating letters inconsistently

16 identified this arrest as occurring a year earlier, in May

17 2003.

18 Taken together, these inconsistencies provide

19 substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility

20 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166–67.

5 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court 7

6