Mohammed Uddin v. Jeff Sessions
678 F. App'x 196
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Mohammed Shahid Uddin, a Bangladeshi national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an IJ denied relief and ordered removal, and the BIA affirmed.
- The IJ and BIA found Uddin not credible and held he failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence.
- The adverse credibility finding relied in part on inconsistencies between two written asylum applications, statements from a credible fear interview, Uddin’s hearing testimony, and witness statements.
- Uddin argued the first asylum application contained mistakes, was not read to him in a language he understood, and thus should be disregarded or replaced by the second application.
- The record included a signed first application in which Uddin certified under penalty of perjury that it was true and correct and the preparer certified she had read it to him in a language he understood.
- Uddin also failed to exhaust challenges to the IJ’s findings about witness-statement inconsistencies and did not challenge the IJ’s CAT denial in his petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Uddin's Argument | BIA/IJ's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA erred by relying on statements in Uddin’s first asylum application for adverse credibility | First application contained a mistake and was not necessarily read to him; it should be disregarded or substituted by the second application | The signed application and preparer’s certification presume Uddin knew its contents; inconsistencies across records justified reliance | Court upheld reliance; Uddin failed to rebut presumption and inconsistencies support adverse credibility |
| Whether Uddin rebutted the regulatory presumption that he was aware of his first application’s contents (8 C.F.R. § 208.3(c)(2)) | Testimony that he lacked English and could not tell his whole story rebuts presumption | The signed certifications and preparer’s statement were unrebutted; testimony insufficient to overcome presumption | Court held Uddin did not sufficiently rebut the presumption |
| Whether inconsistencies in witness statements were reviewable by this court | Uddin contends the IJ erred in treating witness statements as inconsistent | BIA/IJ found inconsistencies; but issue was not raised to the BIA | Court found issue waived for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief | Uddin contends record supports relief | BIA/IJ relied on adverse credibility and lack of corroboration | Court held substantial evidence supports denial of asylum and withholding; CAT claim waived for not being raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir.) (appellate review of BIA while considering IJ decision)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.) (credibility determinations reviewed deferentially under totality of circumstances)
- Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir.) (failure to exhaust before BIA bars judicial review)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (asylum failure forecloses withholding claim)
- Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir.) (issues not raised in petition for review are waived)