Tobarak Tofu v. Matthew Whitaker


UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1838 TOBARAK ULLA TOFU, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: September 27, 2018 Decided: November 21, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and William L. OSTEEN, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation. Petition denied by unpublished opinion. Judge Osteen wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Motz joined. ARGUED: Vron John Kapoor, LAW OFFICE OF VRON JOHN KAPOOR, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Victoria Marie Braga, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy Ferrier, Assistant Director, Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 OSTEEN, JR., District Judge: Tobarak Tofu (“Tofu”), a citizen of Bangladesh, has filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to U.S. obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Tofu alleges that he was persecuted in Bangladesh due to his political opinion and that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on that same basis. The immigration judge (“IJ”) determined that Tofu was not credible due to five major discrepancies in his testimony, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed on the same grounds. Because we find that three of these inconsistencies are valid reasons to doubt Tofu’s credibility, we affirm the BIA’s order and deny Tofu’s petitions for asylum and withholding of removal. We further find no merit in Tofu’s argument that the IJ improperly took additional testimony on remand from the BIA. Finally, we conclude that the BIA’s denial of CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence. I. A. Tofu asserts that he has been involved with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) since 1987, acting as a local political organizer and recruiting villagers to attend 3 rallies. J.A. 439–41. 1 Tofu may also have been a member of the local “ward committee” of the BNP in his village. J.A. 101–02. Tofu testified before the IJ that he went door to door in the village publicizing BNP rallies. J.A. 440–42. The rallies were attended by approximately 2,500 to 3,000 people, and Tofu’s role at the rallies was to maintain order and lead attendees in shouting slogans. J.A. 130. Tofu alleges that he was twice the victim of violence perpetrated by members of the opposition political party, the Bangladesh Awami League (“Awami League”). On November 25, 1996, Tofu was attacked at a market by a group of ten to fifteen men wielding machetes and hockey sticks and was cut with a machete on his left arm. J.A. 431– 32. Tofu testified that he recognized his attackers as local Awami League members. J.A. 433. The Awami League controlled Bangladesh at the time of the 1996 attack and remained in power ...

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