Bilali v. Garland
18-3100
| 2d Cir. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Petitioner Halim Bilali, an Albanian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief on Oct. 25, 2017 and the BIA affirmed on Sept. 25, 2018; the Second Circuit denied review on July 21, 2021.
- Bilali testified that a 2013 attack was the most serious harm he suffered in Albania and caused him to flee; he also alleged family members were targeted (brother shot; attempts to rape sister and cousin).
- Bilali’s asylum application omitted any mention of the 2013 attack while describing earlier, less serious incidents in detail.
- In a credible-fear interview, Bilali stated he had never been physically harmed in Albania, creating an inconsistency with later statements.
- Documentary evidence (letters from his mother and a local party leader, and a 2016 State Department country report) did not corroborate the 2013 attack; the letter authors were unavailable to testify.
- The IJ and BIA found Bilali not credible based on the omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of reliable corroboration; that adverse credibility ruling was dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of the 2013 attack from the asylum application fatally undermines credibility | Bilali: omission was inadvertent or due to stress/misunderstanding | Government: omission reasonable to rely on because the 2013 attack was material and would reasonably be disclosed | Court: Agency reasonably relied on omission; supports adverse credibility finding |
| Whether the credible-fear interview statement (no physical harm) can be used against Bilali | Bilali: he misunderstood question / was under stress during interview | Government: interview record reliable and probative | Court: Interview bore indicia of reliability; agency permissibly relied on it |
| Whether inconsistent testimony about family members' harm undermines claim | Bilali: family incidents uncertain / memory issues | Government: inconsistencies directly conflict with application allegations | Court: Inconsistencies further supported adverse credibility finding |
| Whether documentary evidence rehabilitates credibility | Bilali: letters and country report corroborate danger | Government: letters omit key incident and authors unavailable; country report is generalized | Court: Documents did not reliably corroborate the 2013 attack; agency reasonably gave them little weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) (credibility factors and reliance on prior silence)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to IJ credibility findings)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009) (reliability of credible-fear interview record)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (burden to show a reasonable fact-finder must credit testimony)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate bears on credibility)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (agency discretion in weighing documentary evidence)
- Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (need for particularized evidence for CAT claims)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (material inconsistency supports adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility dispositive across asylum, withholding, and CAT)