< Back to Main News page

Petitioner, a citizen of Pakistan, sought withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief alleging that he was persecuted by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), including his own brother, because of his membership in the Pakistani Peoples Party (PPP). Petitioner conceded that his application for asylum was untimely because he had failed to file within one year. In support of his claim, Petitioner introduced a copy of his passport issued in June 1996 and a PPP membership card allegedly issued in 1990. On cross-examination, Petitioner claimed that the photographs on both documents, which appeared to be identical, were taken six years apart.

The immigration judge denied relief finding that he had grave doubts about Petitioner's credibility. The IJ based this finding on three grounds: 1) that Petitioner's asylum application was "skeletal at best," 2) that if Petitioner was really fleeing persecution, he would have applied for asylum upon entry to the United States and not 5 years after his entry, and 3) that it was patently impossible that the photo on the passport and on the PPP card were taken six years apart and that the PPP card was likely not a valid document. The decision of the IJ was affirmed by the BIA.

On review, the Second Circuit held that the IJ's analysis in the present case was sufficient to qualify as an "explicit credibility finding" under Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 290 (2d Cir. 2000). The court relied on the fact that the IJ gave three reasons for his adverse credibility finding, that there was no other analysis in the decision, and that the IJ's doubts were "grave" and the IJ found Petitioner's explanation "patently impossible."

On the merits of Petitioner's case, the court held that the agency's determination that Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof for withholding because he lacked credibility was supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the invalidity of the PPP membership card was a proper basis for discrediting the remainder of Petitioner's testimony. The court expressed doubts in footnote 5, however, that the other two grounds for the adverse credibility determination, that the application was skeletal and that he waited years to file, were proper bases by themselves. The court stated it was confident that the IJ would have found Petitioner not credible without these two grounds, so a remand was not necessary.

The court distinguished Petitioner's case from Niang v, Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2007), a case in which the court found that an applicant's otherwise credibility testimony cannot be deemed not credible based on a speculative finding that the applicant has submitted an inauthentic document. See AILA Doc. No. 08011769. The court noted that the IJ in Niang gave for reasons for questioning the document, all of which were problematic. The court noted that in this case, in contrast, the IJ's determination that the PPP card was fraudulent was supported by substantial evidence. The IJ in Niang found that applicant's testimony to be otherwise credible, but the IJ in this case made no such finding.

The court also upheld the IJ's determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon his return to Pakistan.

The petition for review was denied.