11-2494
Sanjel v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A088 379 644
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 10th day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SANU KAJI SANJEL,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-2494
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jason A. Nielson, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; William C. Peachey,
28 Assistant Director; Lindsay Corliss,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
31 Department of Justice, Washington
32 D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Sanu Kaji Sanjel, a native and citizen of
6 Nepal, seeks review of a February 10, 2011, decision of the
7 BIA, affirming the January 30, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying Sanjel’s application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sanu Kaji Sanjel,
11 No. A088 379 644 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2011), aff’g No. A088 379
12 644 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
20 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
22 such as the application in this case, the agency may,
2
1 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a
2 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum
3 applicant’s statements as well as inconsistencies between
4 those statements and other record evidence without regard to
5 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
7 64.
8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
9 credibility determination as to Sanjel’s claim that Maoists
10 threatened him and seek to harm him. In finding Sanjel not
11 credible, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that his
12 asylum application, his wife’s letter, and his father’s
13 letter all omitted the assertion that he hid from Maoists
14 and that the Maoists sought his whereabouts from his wife
15 and father. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu
16 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 & n.3. Moreover, a reasonable
17 fact finder would not be compelled to credit Sanjel’s
18 explanations for these omissions. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
19 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
20 Given the omissions findings, the agency’s adverse
21 credibility determination is supported by substantial
22 evidence and was dispositive of Sanjel’s claims for asylum,
3
1 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin,
2 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
3 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Sanjel abandons any challenge to the
4 BIA’s decision insofar as it rejected his due process claim
5 and denied his motion to remand.
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4