Murad Murtazalievich Akhmedov v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-13020 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 20, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A088-616-943
MURAD MURTAZALIEVICH AKHMEDOV,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
__________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(March 20, 2012)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Murad Murtazalievich Akhmedov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions
for review of the denial of his application for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
Akhmedov sought asylum on the grounds that he had been persecuted and feared
future persecution on account of his Jewish heritage, but the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirmed the finding of the immigration judge that Akhmedov was not
credible. We deny Akhmedov’s petition.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. The
immigration judge provided specific and cogent reasons for the finding. Carrizo v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011). Akhmedov based his
claim of persecution primarily on an incident that occurred outside a university in
Dagestan on April 20, 2006, but there were inconsistences between Akhmedov’s
application, his testimony, and his corroborating evidence regarding the incident
and his injuries. Akhmedov testified initially that he and a compatriot were
attacked around 5:00 p.m. after being harassed and prevented from photographing
anti-Semitic remarks written on a newspaper article that they had posted on a
university bulletin board, but Akhmedov’s testimony changed after the Attorney
General confronted Akhmedov with evidence that he had been in Moscow on the
day of the incident. Eventually Akhmedov admitted that he had traveled to
Moscow, but then he gave an implausible account about returning to Dagestan by
5:30 p.m. and being attacked around 7:30 p.m. Akhmedov stated in his
application that he had been transported to a hospital where he had remained for
2
three days to treat his swollen face, nausea, and a headache, but that statement was
inconsistent with Akhmedov’s testimony that he had suffered a fracture in his
hand, 42 hematomas, and a concussion; a medical report dated April 24, 2006,
stating that Akhmedov had received outpatient treatment for a concussion and
fracture in his forearm suffered on April 20, 2006; and a newspaper article dated
April 28, 2006, reporting that the attack had rendered Akhmedov unconscious for
three days and had required hospitalization for two weeks. The record does not
“compel a reasonable fact finder” to credit Akhmedov’s testimony. Chen v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006).
Akhmedov argues that the Board failed to consider the totality of the
circumstances when reviewing the adverse credibility finding, but we disagree.
The Board considered Akhmedov’s argument that he suffered from memory loss,
but the Board rejected that explanation based on Akhmedov’s ability to “describe[]
in detail” two different versions of the April 2006 incident and the “discrepant
dates and descriptions of his injuries.” Akhmedov argues that the Board also
should have considered the country conditions in Russia, but Akhmedov fails to
explain how those conditions establish the truthfulness of his inconsistent
accounts of persecution.
Akhmedov’s petition for review is DENIED.
3