09-2064-ag
Malo v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A098 937 086
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 30 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 KRENAR MALO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2064-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
20 HOMELAND SECURITY,
21 Respondents.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Marisa C. Petrella, Petrella Brown PLC,
25 Southfield, Michigan.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
28 Civil Division; Terri J. Scadron,
29 Assistant Director; Kristina R. Sracic,
30 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, Civil Division, U.S.
32 Department of Justice, Washington, 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, Krenar Malo, a native and citizen of
6 Albania, seeks review of an April 16, 2009, order of the BIA
7 affirming the March 30, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide denying petitioner’s application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Krenar Malo, No.
11 A 098 937 086 (B.I.A. Apr. 16, 2009), aff’g No. A 098 937
12 086 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008);
20 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
22 credibility determination. In making that determination,
2
1 the IJ found that: (1) it was implausible that Malo could
2 not specify his position in the Democratic Party or describe
3 with any detail his activities on behalf of the party;
4 (2) Malo testified inconsistently regarding the date he
5 entered the United States; and (3) Malo testified
6 inconsistently regarding the dates of the incidents of harm
7 that served as the basis for his asylum application. The
8 BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ
9 “identified inconsistencies in [Malo’s] evidence that bear
10 directly on his claim of past persecution in Albania.”
11 Despite Malo’s arguments, we are not compelled to conclude
12 to the contrary. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81
13 (2d Cir. 2005).
14 Inasmuch as each of Malo’s claims share the same
15 factual predicate, the IJ’s adverse credibility
16 determination is fatal to his application for asylum,
17 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
18 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2006). Thus, we need
19 not reach the agency’s alternate burden of proof findings.
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
22 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
3
1 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
2 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
3 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
4