Background
Nur Mohammed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge made an adverse credibility finding, which the Board affirmed.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s credibility determination for substantial evidence, finding that the record did not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief and that Mohammed’s corroborating documentation was insufficient to rehabilitate his credibility. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found substantial evidence supported the denial. On the due process claim regarding interpretation errors, the court held that Mohammed failed to demonstrate prejudice because the interpretation issues were not connected to the inconsistencies relied upon by the immigration judge.
omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse credibility determination
Illunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015)
What it means going forward
The petition for review is denied, leaving the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing Mohammed’s asylum and related claims in place.