Mohammed v. Garland
19-66
| 2d Cir. | Jul 22, 2021Background:
- Petitioner Fusseini Mohammed, a Ghanaian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection alleging persecution for being gay (beaten by a mob after kissing his boyfriend, detained for two days, received threats).
- Mohammed gave multiple statements: a border patrol interview, an asylum application, and hearing testimony; these contained omissions and inconsistencies (notably omitting the beating/detention in the border interview).
- Inconsistencies included: claiming threatening text messages in some statements but denying them at hearing; contradicting whether he spoke to the mob leader; differing accounts about when he first decided to come to the U.S.; children’s birth certificates listing different occupations than his hearing testimony.
- The IJ found Mohammed not credible and denied relief; the BIA affirmed; Mohammed petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the adverse credibility finding under the substantial-evidence standard and affirmed, concluding the agency reasonably relied on the omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of sufficient corroboration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency reasonably found Mohammed not credible based on omissions and inconsistencies | Mohammed disputed only the agency’s reliance on his omission of sexual orientation at the border interview | Agency relied on multiple omissions/inconsistencies (omitted beating/detention, conflicting accounts about texts and conversations, timing of flight, occupational discrepancies) | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports adverse credibility finding |
| Whether the border interview omission could support an adverse credibility ruling | Mohammed argued against reliance on that omission (implicitly challenging airport/border interview reliability) | Government relied on the border statement plus other inconsistencies; noted petitioner did not dispute the record’s reliability | Court cautioned border interviews can be suspect but declined relief because Mohammed did not challenge record reliability; finding stands |
| Whether failure to corroborate permits denying relief after credibility is questioned | Mohammed did not sufficiently rehabilitate testimony with corroboration | Government argued lack of corroboration supports adverse credibility and inability to rehabilitate testimony | Affirmed: failure to corroborate properly weighed against petitioner |
| Whether adverse credibility disposes asylum, withholding, and CAT claims | Mohammed contended relief should be available despite credibility issues | Government: all claims rest on the same discredited factual predicate | Affirmed: adverse credibility dispositive for all forms of relief; 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)
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) (significance of discrepancies judged in the total context of the persecution claim)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to IJ credibility findings; substantial-evidence standard)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (caution about using airport/border interviews but permitting reliance when record reliability not disputed)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (applicant must do more than offer plausible explanations for inconsistencies)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to corroborate may bear on credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (an adverse credibility finding that defeats the factual predicate defeats asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)