765 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2014), 13-2254, Ahmed v. Holder
|Citation:||765 F.3d 96|
|Opinion Judge:||SELYA, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||MOHAMED OSMAN AHMED, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent|
|Attorney:||Robert Huntington on brief for petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Blair T. O'Connor, Assistant Director, and Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before Thompson, Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||September 02, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Over half a century ago, an impresario named Ralph Edwards shot to fame as the host of a radio show called " Truth or Consequences." The lesson of the show was that playing fast and loose with the truth will often backfire and produce undesirable results. That lesson has continuing relevance today.
In this case, the immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), prompted by what they plausibly perceived to be the petitioner's pernicious pattern of prevarication, refused to grant relief from removal. After careful consideration of the agency's findings and the consequences to the petitioner that flow from those findings, we discern no basis for a favorable exercise of our power of judicial review.
The background facts are easily assembled. The petitioner, Mohamed Osman Ahmed, is a Somalian national who originally entered the United States in 1983 on a student visa and overstayed. Seven years later, he applied for asylum, professing a fear of persecution rooted in his alleged association with two groups to which the reigning Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was opposed: the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF) and the Majerteen clan. The application languished.
Five years later, the petitioner traveled to Canada and applied for asylum there under a different name (Suudi Mahad Ishaq) and on a somewhat different basis: a fear of persecution because the United Somali Congress (U.S.C.) purportedly wanted to eliminate members of the Majerteen clan. This petition met an abrupt end in 1996, when the petitioner returned to the United States.
United States Border Patrol agents in Vermont discovered the petitioner in the
company of several naturalized Canadians of Somali origin who had recently been denied entry into the United States from Canada. The petitioner and his travel companions gave inconsistent answers about their agenda, raising agents' suspicions. Consultation with Canadian immigration authorities revealed the existence of the Canadian asylum application that the petitioner had filed under his nom de guerre. Canadian authorities summarily canceled the petitioner's Canadian asylum application as fraudulently filed.
We fast-forward to 2000, when the federal government charged the petitioner with removability as an alien present without having been admitted or paroled after inspection. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The petitioner responded in June of 2001 by filing a new application requesting asylum (his first asylum application having been deemed abandoned when he decamped for Canada), withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Along with this new application came a new justification: fear of persecution in Somalia at the hands of al-Shabaab, a militant group known for violent attacks on Sufi Muslims.
There followed a long road of procedural twists and turns, which we need not chart (except to note that the petitioner, through counsel, conceded in written pleadings that he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled after inspection). At the end of this road, the IJ denied all the petitioner's requests for relief and ordered him removed to Somalia. The IJ premised his decision on an adverse credibility determination, explaining that the petitioner had been guilty of " considerable inconsistencies, omissions, and untruths."
The BIA affirmed in all respects (including affirmance of the IJ's refusal to allow the petitioner to amend his pleadings). This petition for judicial review followed.
Before us, the petitioner argues that the agency (i) erroneously denied him relief from removal, (ii) improperly refused to let him amend his pleadings, and (iii) abridged his due process rights. We address these arguments sequentially.
We begin with the petitioner's...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP