Case: 19-60800 Document: 00515912792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 24, 2021 No. 19-60800 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Rabbi Rabbi, also known as Rabbi, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A 201 526 096 Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Rabbi Rabbi, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60800 Document: 00515912792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 No. 19-60800 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petition is denied. An adverse credibility determination “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The IJ and the BIA “may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Id. at 538 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When the BIA identifies “specific inconsistencies” and “crucial omissions,” it has “supported its determination with specific and cogent reasons derived from the record.” Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted). The record before this court contains multiple inconsistencies between Rabbi’s sworn statement, asylum interview, application, and testimony. Both the IJ opinion and the BIA opinion evince reliance on specific inconsistencies. See id. 289. Thus, the record does not compel the conclusion that Rabbi testified credibly. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536-37. Aliens in removal proceedings are presumed to be competent to participate in those proceedings. Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I & N Dec. 474, 477 (BIA 2011). In cases where issues implicating mental competency arise, the IJ must consider whether there is good cause to believe that the alien is not competent to proceed without safeguards. Id. at 479. This court has previously recognized that the IJ, who is in the courtroom and has experience with witnesses who assert persecution, is best positioned to weigh whether the applicant has a “genuine[] problem” or is instead “feign[ing] a problem to avoid probing questions about inconsistencies in a false story.” See Wang, 569 F.3d at 539. 2 Case: 19-60800 Document: 00515912792 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 No. 19-60800 Rabbi did not mention feeling unwell until he was questioned pointedly regarding some inconsistencies in his case. His answers to questions indicated that he was oriented to time, place, and purpose. There is no record evidence that Rabbi has ever suffered from any …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals