Case: 20-60628 Document: 00516158960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60628 January 7, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Fozijon Suxrobovich Murodov, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 203 646 180 Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Fozijon Murodov, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). He challenges the adverse-credibility determination and contends that the immi- gration judge (I.J.) violated his due process rights during the hearing on his * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60628 Document: 00516158960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 No. 20-60628 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Conven- tion Against Torture (“CAT”). We generally review only the BIA’s decision but will consider the I.J.’s underlying decision to the extent the BIA relied on it. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Questions of law are reviewed de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). Under the substantial evidence standard, a petitioner must show that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and cita- tion omitted). An adverse-credibility determination is conclusive “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a determination. Id. at 767 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A reasonable factfinder could interpret Murodov’s credible-fear inter- view (“CFI”) and hearing testimony as inconsistent regarding the harm he suffered while detained on September 24 and October 4, 2017. Murodov contends that those inconsistencies were insufficient to support the adverse- credibility determination because they resulted from the asylum officer’s antagonism toward him during the CFI, the asylum officer’s failure to ask certain questions and failure to allow him to fully respond to the questions, and the CFI’s lack of detail. The asylum officer asked open-ended questions that gave Murodov the opportunity to report all the harm he suffered on September 24 and October 4. The asylum officer also gave Murodov multiple opportunities to make changes or additions to his responses. Under the totality of the cir- cumstances, the inconsistencies relied upon by the BIA present sufficient grounds for a reasonable factfinder to make an adverse credibility ruling. See Avelar-Oliva, 954 F.3d at 767-69. Murodov also has not shown that the 2 Case: 20-60628 Document: 00516158960 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 No. 20-60628 record compels the conclusion that the asylum officer’s notes of the CFI are unreliable. See id. at 764-65. Furthermore, a reasonable factfinder could agree with the BIA that, absent credible …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals