Boota v. Sessions
699 F. App'x 21
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Malik Boota, a Pakistani national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after prior U.S. immigration proceedings; the IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- Boota had previously applied for asylum in 1995 and again in 2009; he conceded providing false information on his 1995 application.
- Material inconsistencies existed between Boota’s applications and testimony: dates/places of U.S. entry, prior arrests, and whether he left the U.S. between 1994–2002.
- Boota admitted he hid the prior asylum denial and exclusion order on the 1995 application and gave conflicting testimony about arrests and travel history.
- The agency found adverse credibility based on the false statement, other inconsistencies, and lack of candor, and concluded this fatal to all forms of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boota) | Defendant's Argument (Sessions) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single false statement in a prior asylum application can support adverse credibility | The false statement is explainable and should not taint all evidence | False statement may undermine credibility and infect uncorroborated evidence | A single false document/testimony can sustain an adverse credibility finding (Siewe applies); adverse credibility upheld |
| Whether inconsistencies about entry dates and travel history require crediting Boota’s explanation | Boota said he forgot or destroyed evidence explaining the discrepancy | Agency argued explanation did not resolve inconsistency or compel crediting | Court: petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation; agency reasonably declined to credit him |
| Whether discrepancies about alleged arrests in Pakistan defeat credibility | Boota claimed misunderstanding of the term "arrest" and lack of education | Agency noted omissions in applications and contradictory testimony; records show he was in U.S. exclusion proceedings during alleged arrest dates | Court found inconsistencies and contradictions supported adverse credibility finding |
| Whether adverse credibility forecloses asylum, withholding, and CAT relief | Boota urged relief despite credibility issues | Government argued all relief depends on same factual predicate and is foreclosed by adverse credibility | Court held adverse credibility dispositive for all claims; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing IJ decisions as modified by the BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to credibility findings and REAL ID Act standards)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (a single false document/testimony may infect petitioner’s other evidence)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (applicant’s inability to produce evidence can fail to resolve inconsistencies)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit testimony)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility can be dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT)