686 F. App'x 465
9th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioners Aman, Mita, Urmi, and Sharat Rahman are natives/citizens of Bangladesh (Mita born in Pakistan) who sought various immigration reliefs; BIA denied relief on July 25, 2013.
- Aman admitted to filing a frivolous asylum application and giving false testimony in 2004 (including claims of being beaten in 1996 and entering the U.S. in 1998); records showed he entered on a B-2 visa that expired in 1991 and had been in Sweden before arriving to the U.S.
- Mita received asylum in 2009 but was present and accepted the 2004 hearing result despite knowing it was based on Aman’s false testimony.
- The BIA denied withholding of removal and CAT relief for Aman and Mita based on adverse credibility caused by deliberate fabrications; it denied Urmi cancellation of removal for lack of good moral character and denied voluntary departure for respondents.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed adverse credibility findings under the substantial-evidence standard and held it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations about good moral character, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aman’s admitted lies defeat withholding of removal and CAT relief | Aman argued his claims deserved protection despite prior false statements | BIA/Respondent argued deliberate falsehoods undermine credibility and destroy the basis for protection | Court: Affirmed; deliberate fabrications provide substantial evidence for adverse credibility finding and denial of withholding/CAT |
| Whether Mita’s asylum/grant should be upheld despite her acceptance of a false-based grant | Mita argued she should retain relief granted in 2009 | BIA argued Mita accepted benefit of Aman’s fraudulent testimony, undermining her credibility | Court: Affirmed; acceptance of benefit from false testimony justified adverse credibility and denial of relief |
| Whether adverse credibility review standard was correctly applied | Petitioners argued BIA erred in evaluating credibility | Government argued BIA properly considered totality of circumstances per statutory factors | Court: Affirmed; applied substantial-evidence review and permissible credibility factors (demeanor, inconsistencies, falsehoods) |
| Whether courts have jurisdiction to review BIA’s findings on good moral character for cancellation/voluntary departure | Urmi/Sharat sought review of BIA’s discretionary denial | Government argued IIRIRA strips judicial review over discretionary relief determinations | Court: Dismissed petitions as to Sharat and Urmi for lack of jurisdiction under IIRIRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (articulates substantial-evidence review for adverse credibility in withholding/CAT claims)
- Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (addresses review standard for CAT/withholding decisions)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2008) (explains courts may reverse BIA only if record compels contrary result)
- Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that lying to immigration officials supports an adverse credibility finding)
- Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002) (IIRIRA eliminates jurisdiction over discretionary BIA decisions regarding relief)