Summary
The Second Circuit denied Zhunusov’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, holding that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on the petitioner’s evasive demeanor, omissions of material threats in prior interviews, inconsistencies in his detention history, and lack of corroboration. The court also held that removal does not moot a petition if the government could facilitate the petitioner’s return, and that the BIA did not engage in improper fact-finding by reviewing the IJ’s clear error finding. Key legal topics include adverse credibility determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), exhaustion of pattern-or-practice arguments, and the dispositive effect of an adverse credibility finding on all three forms of relief.
Holdings
- Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on the IJ's demeanor finding, omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration.
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination.
Disposition
denied
Cases Cited (13)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)(cited)
- Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2004)(cited)
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005)(cited)
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018)(cited)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008)(cited)
- Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005)(cited)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007)(cited)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009)(cited)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005)(cited)
- Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2006)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.