Sandeep Mohamad v. Merrick Garland
20-71105
| 9th Cir. | Jun 21, 2021Background
- Petitioner Sandeep Mohamad, an Indian citizen, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.; the IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- Central to the denials was an adverse credibility finding based on multiple inconsistencies in Mohamad’s testimony and declaration.
- Key factual inconsistencies: Mohamad alternately identified his attackers/threateners as Shiv Sena, RSS, and the police; he denied knowing Shiv Sena yet listed them repeatedly in his declaration; he equated Shiv Sena with RSS despite documentary evidence distinguishing them.
- Additional inconsistencies involved when he first contacted police (he variously testified November 2014, January 2015, and misstated 2005), and contradictory accounts of specific incidents.
- Petitioner omitted an earlier attempted U.S. entry (March 2015) from his declaration; counsel later accepted responsibility for that omission.
- Because the IJ found Mohamad not credible and corroboration was insufficient, the IJ and BIA denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding substantial evidence supports the decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Mohamad argued inconsistencies were innocent mistakes and not dispositive | Government/BIA argued numerous material inconsistencies and weak explanations justified disbelief | Court: Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding; record does not compel a contrary conclusion |
| Whether asylum and withholding claims survive given the adverse credibility finding | Mohamad contended his testimony and documents suffice | Government argued lack of credible testimony plus insufficient corroboration defeats claims | Court: Denied asylum and withholding due to adverse credibility and insufficient corroboration |
| Whether CAT relief is available despite credibility problems | Mohamad relied on same testimony underlying asylum claim | Government noted CAT claim rested on statements found not credible and no other compelling evidence | Court: Denied CAT relief for same reasons; substantial evidence supports denial |
| Whether the omission of the prior March 2015 attempted entry alters credibility analysis | Mohamad (through counsel) characterized omission as counsel error | Government highlighted omission as additional inconsistency | Court: Even excluding the omission, other material inconsistencies alone support adverse credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (high bar to overturn IJ adverse credibility; inconsistencies support denial)
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must give specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve applicant)
- Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (corroboration requirement and application to CAT claims)
- Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2017) (review standard: substantial evidence for factual findings)
- Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2021) (credibility findings conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator compelled to the contrary)
- Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2020) (major inconsistencies on material issues support adverse credibility)
- Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1994) (IJ must articulate legitimate basis for disbelief)