Khalmat Obidjonov, et al. v. U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 1, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12915
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A094-805-309
KHALMAT OBIDJONOV,
ZURA OBIDJONOVA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 1, 2012)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Khalmat Obidjonov and his wife, Zura Obidjonova, natives and citizens of
Uzbekistan, petition for review of the denial of their applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3). The Board of
Immigration Appeals affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that the
Obidjonovs’ applications for asylum were untimely and that Khalmat’s testimony
was not credible. We dismiss in part and deny in part the Obidjonovs’ petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Obidjonovs’ application for asylum. The
Obidjonovs waited more than one year after their arrival in the United States to
apply for asylum, id. § 1158(2)(B), and although they argued that changed
circumstances excused their untimely filing, id. § 1158(a)(2)(D), “[n]o court . . .
ha[s] jurisdiction to review” that determination, id. § 1158(a)(3). We dismiss the
Obidjonovs’ petition for review of the denial of their application for asylum.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Khalmat was not credible,
and the immigration judge provided specific and cogent reasons to support that
finding. Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011). There
were several inconsistencies in the evidence regarding Khalmat’s personal life and
his business. Khalmat testified that he changed his surname from Aripov to
Obidjonov in 2000, but he submitted exhibits that established he used the surname
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Obidjonov in 1995. Khalmat stated in an amended application that his son and
father sold his apartment in November 2008, but Khalmat testified that his father
died in January 2007. Khalmat’s application contained inconsistent statements
about how long that he owned a grocery store: Khalmat first stated that he owned
the store through 2000, but he later stated that he was forced by the government to
sell the store in December 1995. Khalmat testified that he paid “155,000 soms”
for the store and was forced to sell the store for “100,000 soms,” but Khalmat
submitted an exhibit stating that he paid “5022 sum” for the store. The
Obidjonovs argue that these inconsistences are “minor [and] immaterial,” but the
“trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . any inaccuracies[,
inconsistencies,] or falsehoods in [the applicant’s written and oral] statements,
without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the
heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Moreover, there
was a “discrepancy” in the evidence about the Obidjonovs’ claim of future
persecution: the Obidjonovs stated that they feared persecution from “local
Mahala authorities,” but the Obidjonovos submitted a certificate obtained from an
official of the “Mahala Society.”
We DISMISS the petition for review of the denial of asylum and DENY the
petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
4

-- 4 of 4 --