Rizwan Ahmen v. U.S. Attorney General


USCA11 Case: 21-12770 Date Filed: 06/27/2022 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12770 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ RIZWAN AHMED, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216-273-526 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12770 Date Filed: 06/27/2022 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 21-12770 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rizwan Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order that affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The IJ determined that Ahmed was not credible and denied relief. On appeal, Ahmed challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. After careful review of the record, we deny Ahmed’s petition. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES Before reviewing Ahmed’s claims, we set forth the applica- ble principles for his petition. A. Applications for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief An asylum application must show, with specific and credible evidence, either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of one of the protected grounds. Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, an applicant for withholding of removal bears the burden of showing that it is more likely than not that the applicant USCA11 Case: 21-12770 Date Filed: 06/27/2022 Page: 3 of 12 21-12770 Opinion of the Court 3 will be persecuted or tortured because of a protected ground upon being returned to his or her country. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005). Under CAT, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). B. Adverse Credibility Findings An adverse credibility determination standing alone is sufficient to support the denial of an asylum application when there is no other evidence of persecution. Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. If, however, the applicant submits other evidence of persecution, the IJ must consider this evidence as well. Id. To determine whether an applicant’s testimony is credible, the IJ may consider the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including: (1) the applicant’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness; (2) the plausibility of the applicant’s testimony; (3) the consistency between the applicant’s oral and written statements, whenever made; (4) the internal consistency of each statement; (5) the consistency of the applicant’s statements with other evidence in the record; and (6) any inaccuracies or falsehoods in the applicant’s statements. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 1 The inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or 1 The IJ’s credibility findings for purposes of determining eligibility for with- holding of removal are also governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). INA § 241(b)(3)(C), 8 …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals