Rrukaj v. Sessions
689 F. App'x 62
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Klisman Rrukaj, an Albanian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after claiming past persecution tied to his father's political activities and an assault in 2010.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed on August 21, 2015.
- The IJ identified multiple inconsistencies between Rrukaj’s testimony, his asylum application, and other record evidence (e.g., relatives’ locations, medical treatment source, prior credible-fear statements).
- Rrukaj submitted limited corroboration (a medical report and parents’ declaration not raised before the BIA); no affidavits or testimony from U.S.-based sisters and no country-conditions evidence on family political targeting.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions, applying the substantial-evidence standard to the adverse credibility determination, and denied the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency permissibly made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies | Rrukaj maintained his testimony was accurate and attempted explanations for discrepancies | Government argued the inconsistencies (sister’s location, source of medical treatment, prior credible-fear statement about politics) supported an adverse credibility ruling | Court held the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether the IJ improperly ignored parents’ declaration that would rehabilitate testimony | Rrukaj argued parents’ declaration rehabilitates his credibility and requires remand | Government argued the declaration was not before the agency and the existing record sufficed for adverse credibility | Court declined to consider this argument as Rrukaj failed to exhaust it before the agency and thus forfeited it for judicial review |
| Whether submitted corroboration rehabilitated Rrukaj’s testimony | Rrukaj contended his corroborating documents (medical report) supported his claims | Government contended corroboration was insufficient (discrepancies in medical report author; lack of affidavits from sisters; no country conditions on family targeting) | Court held corroboration did not rehabilitate testimony and supported the adverse credibility ruling |
| Whether adverse credibility forecloses asylum, withholding, and CAT relief | Rrukaj argued underlying facts support relief if believed | Government argued all claims rested on the same factual predicate and thus depended on credibility | Court held the credibility ruling dispositively denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (totality-of-circumstances review of adverse credibility based on inconsistencies)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency may reject explanations for inconsistencies)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 2009) (importance of prior statements in credibility analysis)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (judicially imposed issue-exhaustion requirement)
- Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2004) (issues generally must be raised before the BIA)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration requirements and evaluation)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (adverse credibility ruling can be dispositive of all forms of relief)