Abdul Ohab v. U.S. Attorney General
24-11423
11th Cir.Jun 23, 2025Background
- Abdul Ohab, a Bangladeshi citizen and BNP party member, entered the U.S. in 2013 without valid documents, seeking asylum due to alleged political persecution by the Awami League.
- Ohab described multiple threats and two assaults by Awami League members and claimed police refused to file his report, allegedly due to political ties.
- At his asylum hearing, Ohab gave detailed testimony about these events but provided inconsistent details about how and when he obtained his passport after the alleged attacks.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, making an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies in Ohab’s testimony, especially about his passport and differences with his earlier credible-fear interview.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, holding the adverse credibility determination was supported by the record, and rejected Ohab’s appeal.
- Ohab then petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review, raising challenges to the credibility finding and arguing for relief even if deemed not credible, based on evidence of broader persecution in Bangladesh.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility determination | Ohab's inconsistencies were trivial; claims detailed, consistent | Inconsistencies about passport & testimony material; no error | Court upholds adverse credibility finding |
| Sufficiency of corroborating evidence | Record supports asylum, even if not credible | Letters/affidavits inconsistent, not sufficient | Court finds evidence insufficient |
| Pattern/practice of persecution | Evidence shows BNP members persecuted regardless of credibility | Not raised before BIA, thus unexhausted | Dismissed as unexhausted |
| CAT relief | No specific argument presented | No argument/issue presented by Ohab | Considered abandoned by failure to argue |
Key Cases Cited
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (standards for credibility determinations and corroborating evidence in asylum cases)
- D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2004) (credibility of asylum applicants and standards for review)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence review of immigration decisions)
- Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (upholding adverse credibility findings and their consequences)
- Kueviakoe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 567 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (materiality requirements for inconsistencies in credibility findings)
- Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2009) (treatment of omissions in preliminary vs. hearing statements)
- Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2009) (reliance on omissions of significant facts in adverse credibility determinations)