Aman Rahman v. Jefferson Sessions , 686 F. App'x 465 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMAN RAHMAN, AKA Mohammad No. 13-72901
Amanur Aman Rahman Mullah; et al.,
Agency Nos. A075-623-466
Petitioners, A075-623-467
A075-708-640
v. A075-708-641
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Aman Rahman, Urmi Rahman, and Sharat Rahman, natives and citizens of
Bangladesh, and Mita Rahman, a native of Pakistan and citizen of Bangladesh,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of various
petitions, all on July 25, 2013. The BIA refused Aman and Mita Rahmans’
withholding of removal claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and their claims for
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) per 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–
18. It also denied Urmi Rahman’s request for cancellation of removal for a non-
permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, and all respondents were refused the
privilege of voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. As the parties are
familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm the BIA’s decision
and dismiss the associated petitions.
We review the BIA’s decision to deny withholding of removal and CAT
relief based on adverse credibility determinations under the “substantial evidence”
standard. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010); Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). This standard of review allows us to
reverse the BIA “only if the evidence in the record compels a contrary result.”
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2008). When making an
adverse credibility determination, the BIA must consider the totality of the
circumstances and may base its decision on the applicant’s demeanor, candor,
2
responsiveness, inherent plausibility, consistency, inaccuracies, falsehoods, or
other relevant factors. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
The BIA denied relief to Aman Rahman because he admitted to knowingly
filing a frivolous application for asylum and to providing false testimony to the
Immigration Court in 2004, including testifying that he was beaten by Bangladeshi
government forces in 1996 and that he entered the United States in 1998 to flee
persecution. The record unequivocally shows that he entered the United States on
a B-2 visa that expired on July 30, 1991, that he had been in Sweden, not
Bangladesh, before coming to the United States, and that he had not returned to
Bangladesh. The BIA held that such deliberate fabrications warranted an adverse
credibility finding, and we agree. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th
Cir. 2011) (holding that lying to immigration officials “always counts as
substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding”). In light of that
holding, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
and protection under the CAT.
Mita Rahman, Aman Rahman’s wife, was granted asylum under false
pretenses in 2009. She was present in the Immigration Court in 2004 when the
false testimony described above was provided and accepted a grant of asylum
knowing that it was based on a frivolous application. The BIA found that this
attempt to benefit from Aman Rahman’s falsehoods gave rise to an adverse
3
credibility determination. Because there is substantial evidence supporting this
finding, as well as the previous findings, we affirm. See id. at 1182 (“It doesn’t
matter which spouse told the lie and which one tacitly assented . . . .”).
Lastly, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) eliminates our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations that Sharat
Rahman and Urmi Rahman did not possess the requisite “good moral character” in
the past five years to qualify for voluntary departure or cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (divesting courts of jurisdiction to review BIA
judgments granting relief under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b (cancellation of removal) and
1229c (voluntary departure)); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144
(9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the IIRIRA “eliminates jurisdiction [] over
decisions by the BIA that involve the exercise of discretion”). The BIA so
decided, and we are thus foreclosed from considering the challenges to the BIA’s
findings.
For these reasons, we affirm the BIA’s decision to deny withholding of
removal and CAT relief to Aman and Mita Rahman and dismiss the petitions of
their children for want of jurisdiction.
Petitions for review DENIED as to Aman and Mita Rahman and DISMISSED
as to Sharat and Urmi Rahman.
4