Diallo v. Holder

09-5334-ag Diallo v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A097 535 483 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 29 th day of September, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _______________________________________ 13 14 MAMADOU FALILOU DIALLO, 15 A.K.A. AMADOU DIALLO, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 09-5334-ag 19 NAC 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New 26 York. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 29 General; Jennifer L. Lightbody, 30 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nicole J. 31 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D.C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Mamadou Falilou Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, 10 seeks review of a December 4, 2009, order of the BIA 11 affirming the September 24, 2008, decision of Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan, pretermitting his asylum 13 application and denying his application for withholding of 14 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Mamadou Falilou Diallo, No. A097 535 483 16 (B.I.A. Dec. 4, 2009), aff’g No. A097 535 483 (Immig. Ct. 17 N.Y. City Sept. 24, 2008). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 21 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See 22 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) . The 23 applicable standards of review are well-established. 24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. 25 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 Diallo challenges the agency’s denial, on adverse 2 credibility grounds, of his claim for withholding of 3 removal. However, substantial evidence supports the 4 agency’s adverse credibility determination. For asylum 5 applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, 6 considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 7 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, 8 candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his or her 9 account, and inconsistencies in his or her statements, 10 without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the 11 applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 12 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 13 We defer to the IJ’s finding that Diallo’s “poor” and 14 “anxious” demeanor undermined his credibility. See Majidi 15 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005); see also 16 Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 116-17 (2d 17 Cir. 2007). Additionally, the IJ reasonably based his 18 adverse credibility determination on several discrepancies 19 among Diallo’s testimony, his written application, and his 20 supporting evidence. For example, the IJ noted that, 21 although Diallo testified that he was not a “member” of the 22 UPR, but merely a “supporter,” and that he did not know what 3 1 UPR stood for, both his written application and a letter 2 from the president of the UPR provided that he was, in fact, 3 a “member” and his written application also indicated that 4 the UPR stood for “Union for Progress and Renewal.” The IJ 5 also noted the inconsistency between Diallo’s testimony that 6 he was detained in Guinea for exactly four months, his 7 wife’s letter stating that he was detained for three months, 8 and a document requesting that his asylum application be 9 corrected to indicate that he was detained for three months 10 and nine days, as opposed to six months. These 11 inconsistencies were proper bases for finding Diallo not 12 credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 13 534 F.3d at 167. To the extent that Diallo offered 14 explanations for these inconsistencies, the IJ was not 15 compelled to credit them. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. 16 Moreover, the IJ did not err in finding that Diallo’s 17 failure to present adequate corroborating evidence for his 18 claim of persecution further undermined his credibility. See 19 Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) 20 (finding that an applicant’s failure to corroborate his or 21 her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence 22 of corroboration in general renders the applicant unable to 4 1 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into 2 question). 3 Finally, because Diallo failed to challenge the IJ’s 4 denial of his CAT claim in his appeal to the BIA, we are as 5 a statutory matter without jurisdiction to consider any 6 challenge to the denial of that relief. See 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1252(d)(1); Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 8 2006). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 17 FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 5