Ruslan Akhmedovich Magomedov v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12743 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12743
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A088-610-184
RUSLAN AKHMEDOVICH MAGOMEDOV,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 8, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12743 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Ruslan Magomedov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal of his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a),
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c). Magomedov contends the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was not
supported by substantial evidence because the IJ’s credibility findings were not
“cogent” and did not warrant deference. After review, 1 we deny the petition.
Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, credibility determinations are based upon
the totality of the circumstances:
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,
a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor,
candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent
plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements
(whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the
circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal
consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements
with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department
of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in
such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or
any other relevant factor.
1
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA expressly adopted
the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). In that situation, we
review the IJ’s decision also. Id. Here, because the BIA issued its own decision but adopted
much of the IJ’s reasoning with respect to the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination, we review
both opinions.
2
Case: 12-12743 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 3 of 4
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[T]he IJ must offer specific, cogent reasons for an
adverse credibility finding.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th
Cir. 2005). We review the IJ’s factual determinations, including credibility, under
the substantial evidence test, and only reverse that determination if the evidence
“compels” a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463
F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 2006).
The IJ gave specific and cogent reasons as to why he found Magomedov
incredible, including: (1) inconsistencies between Magomedov’s testimony and the
forensic medical report; (2) inconsistencies between Magomedov’s and his
brother’s testimonies; and (3) inconsistencies between Magomedov’s testimony
and his asylum application. The record reveals that Magomedov testified
inconsistently about the assault, his university employment, and his living situation
in Russia. The inconsistencies in the forensic medical report concerned the
number of attackers, whether the attack was “domestic violence,” and whether
Magomedov recalled the circumstances of the attack. Moreover, other significant
discrepancies included whether Magomedov was bedridden for two months in
2004, when Magomedov also testified he defended his diploma during that period,
and graduated on July 1, 2004. Additionally, while Magomedov and his brother
testified that Magomedov moved out of the family home, on the asylum
application, Magomedov indicated he lived exclusively at the family home until
3
Case: 12-12743 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 4 of 4
his departure to the United States. Further, Magomedov testified he worked as an
English instructor from November 2004 until his departure to the United States in
June 2006, but he later testified that he stayed in his apartment between October
2005 and June 2006, and did not work.
Despite finding Magomedov’s testimony incredible, the IJ considered all the
evidence before denying his application. See Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1287. The
BIA’s decision is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
the record considered as a whole,” and the evidence does not compel reversal. See
Chen, 463 F.3d at 1230-31; Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir.
2001) (quotations omitted). Thus, we deny Magomedov’s petition. See Niftaliev
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining the IJ must
determine credibility in withholding of removal cases in the same manner as in
asylum cases); see also Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 884, 891
(11th Cir. 2007) (stating if an alien is unable to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution for purposes of asylum, he will fail to demonstrate that torture is
more likely than not, for purposes of CAT relief).
PETITION DENIED.
4