Mahamed Mahamud v. Garland

Case: 21-60163 Document: 00516427867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2022 No. 21-60163 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Khadar Mahamed Mahamud, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A213 482 595 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Khadar Mahamed Mahamud, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60163 Document: 00516427867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 21-60163 relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and on that basis, concluded that Mahamud had failed to establish an eligibility for relief. In his brief, Mahamud raises arguments as to the several inconsistencies identified by the IJ; however, we do not assess Mahamud’s arguments as to credibility factors that the BIA did not rely on. See Avelar- Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). As to the inconsistencies relied on by the BIA, in essence Mahamud’s contentions are that he testified candidly and consistently and that the perceived inconsistencies underlying the adverse credibility determination are the result of mistakes or omissions by the asylum officer who conducted the credible fear interview (CFI) and the person who prepared a letter that indicated his mother had been killed by the Ethiopian government. Relying on extra-circuit authority, Mahamud argues that the CFI should not have been considered in determining his credibility because the record of the CFI is not a verbatim transcript of the interview; he also contends that, at the conclusion of his CFI, the asylum officer only read back a short summary of his statements, limiting his ability to verify the correctness of the asylum officer’s account of the CFI. We have rejected an argument that “credibility can never be challenged by reference to a credible-fear worksheet.” Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 594 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, we have stated that “discrepancies among an alien’s CFI, other records, and testimony can be considered in deciding credibility.” Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 765. Regardless, even if the BIA’s consideration of the CFI is problematic under the particular facts of this matter, there is no realistic possibility that the BIA would have reached a different conclusion. See Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010). This is true because, even aside from the CFI, the BIA cited “specific and cogent reasons derived from the 2 Case: 21-60163 Document: 00516427867 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2022 No. 21-60163 record” …

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