Karim Dhuka v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 400 F. App'x 927 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-60051 Document: 00511285828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    November 5, 2010
    No. 10-60051
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    KARIM DHUKA; NASIM DHUKA; AIZAZ KARIM DHUKA,
    Petitioners
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A099 616 515
    BIA No. A099 616 518
    BIA No. A099 616 519
    Before KING, D E MOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Nasim Dhuka (Nasim), together with her derivative beneficiaries Karim
    Dhuka and Aizaz Karim Dhuka, petitions for review of the decision of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decisions of the immigration judge
    (IJ) to deny her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
    the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Dhukas are natives and citizens of
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 10-60051 Document: 00511285828 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
    No. 10-60051
    India, who alleged that Nasim suffered persecution from Hindu fundamentalists
    on the basis of her Muslim religion. The IJ determined that Nasim’s testimony
    was not credible, and this ruling was upheld by the BIA. Alternatively, the IJ
    ruled that even if Nasim’s testimony was accepted as true, she had not
    established her entitlement for relief; the BIA likewise upheld this decision.
    The Dhukas argue that the IJ failed to explain adequately why Nasim’s
    “demeanor” warranted an adverse credibility finding and failed to take into
    account the shame Nasim faced as a Muslim woman testifying about her rape.
    They maintain that inconsistencies noted by the IJ were the result of
    “badgering” and insensitive questioning and thus do not reflect adversely on her
    credibility. The Dhukas also contend that Nasim’s testimony was adequately
    corroborated by affidavits and by magazine articles and country reports showing
    that during the pertinent time period Muslims suffered severe harm at the
    hands of Hindu fundamentalist groups. They assert that as a result Nasim has
    established past persecution and the Government has failed to rebut the
    presumption of future persecution if they return to India. The Dhukas do not
    challenge to the denial of relief under the CAT, so any such claim is abandoned.
    See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 830
    , 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Likewise, any
    challenge the denial of Karim Dhuka’s separate application for withholding of
    removal has been abandoned. See 
    id.
    We review an immigration court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence.
    Wang v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 531
    , 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We will not reverse an
    immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that
    no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” 
    Id. at 537
    . Among the
    findings of fact that we review for substantial evidence is an immigration court’s
    conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.
    Zhang v. Gonzales, 
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, “an IJ may rely on any
    inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long
    2
    Case: 10-60051 Document: 00511285828 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
    No. 10-60051
    as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not
    credible.”   Wang, 
    569 F.3d at 538
     (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted); see also 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(iii). We will “defer therefore to an IJ’s
    credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is
    plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
    ruling.” Wang, 
    569 F.3d at 538
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Contrary to the Dhukas’ assertions, the IJ explained the factors in Nasim’s
    demeanor that caused the IJ to question Nasim’s credibility. To the extent that
    the Dhukas assert that Nasim’s hesitancy and lack of emotion may be explained
    by her shame, they do not explain why she exhibited the same demeanor when
    explaining why she did not obtain copies of her medical reports showing the
    medical treatment she received after the assault. Additionally, the IJ was
    entitled to question Nasim during the proceedings and could seek reasonably
    available corroborative evidence to support even credible testimony. 8 U.S.C.
    §§ 1229a(b)(1), 1158(b)(2)(B)(ii).     Nasim’s contradictions and implausible
    answers about her failure to obtain corroborative medical evidence caused the
    IJ to pursue further the line of questioning, which led to further inconsistencies
    and to Nasim’s admissions that some of her statements were false. Finally, the
    affidavits and other documentary evidence, while providing generalized
    information about the state of Hindu-Muslim relations at the time of Nasim’s
    assault, do not corroborate Nasim’s story and establish that she in fact was a
    victim of such an attack.
    Moreover, the adverse credibility finding is supported by other
    inconsistencies in Nasim’s testimony, as noted by the IJ. Nasim asserted that
    a crowd of 400-500 Hindus attacked her community and assaulted Muslims, but
    she could not explain how she reached that estimate of the number of attackers
    and she never spoke to her neighbors to ascertain if any of them suffered injury.
    Nasim also contended that her rapists called her when she moved to a different
    town and threatened her, although she could not explain how these individuals
    3
    Case: 10-60051 Document: 00511285828 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/05/2010
    No. 10-60051
    could find her in a different community if she did not know who they were and
    they did not know her identity.
    In light of these inconsistencies and contradictions , it is not plain that “no
    reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang,
    
    569 F.3d at 538
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Dhukas’
    asylum and withholding claims were all based on persecution arising from the
    alleged assault against Nasim. Because the credibility determinations of the IJ
    and BIA withstand review, the decision to deny relief is supported by substantial
    evidence. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45. In light of this ruling, we need not
    address the alternative finding that Nasim’s testimony, even if credible, did not
    establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
    PETITION DENIED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-60051

Citation Numbers: 400 F. App'x 927

Judges: DeMOSS, Dennis, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/5/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023