Yousuf v. Lynch
661 F. App'x 113
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Mohammed Yousuf, a Bangladeshi national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after alleging political persecution by the Awami League.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on Dec. 16, 2014.
- The IJ relied on internal inconsistencies in Yousuf’s testimony, contradictions between his hearing testimony and his credible-fear interview, and his lack of responsiveness at the hearing.
- Specific inconsistencies: conflicting dates for an attempted rape of his wife (March vs. September 2011), disagreement about the number of beatings (three at hearing vs. two in credible-fear interview), and mismatches with his written application and documents.
- The adverse credibility finding was dispositive because all claims (asylum, withholding, CAT) rested on the same factual predicate.
- Yousuf’s argument that the agency ignored material evidence was not considered because he failed to exhaust that claim before the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Yousuf argued his testimony was credible and inconsistencies were innocent or explainable | Government argued inconsistencies, interview record, and poor responsiveness justified disbelief | Court held substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding |
| Whether IJ properly relied on credible-fear interview | Yousuf contended reliance was improper or challenged use of the interview | Government argued the interview was reliable (interpreter used, warned, typewritten record) | Court held agency reasonably relied on the interview as reliable |
| Whether inconsistencies went to the heart of the claim and thus required reversal | Yousuf implied inconsistencies were immaterial to the core asylum claim | Government maintained inconsistencies (dates, number of beatings) were material to credibility | Court held inconsistencies (including those about persecution events) supported denial and were dispositive |
| Whether the agency ignored material evidence (procedural/exhaustion issue) | Yousuf asserted the agency ignored material documentary evidence | Government argued issue was unexhausted before BIA and not reviewable | Court dismissed the argument as unexhausted and declined to reach it |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (review of both BIA and IJ decisions for completeness)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (standard for reviewing credibility findings and reliance on inconsistencies)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (applicant must show a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to credit testimony)
- Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715 (factors supporting reliability of credible-fear interviews)
- Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (inconsistencies about persecution events can support adverse credibility)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (same factual predicate governs asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)
- Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82 (issue exhaustion for challenges to agency reliance)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (judicially imposed exhaustion of administrative issues is mandatory)