12-3762
Wangdue v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A087 468 106
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 14th day of May, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 SONAM WANGDUE, AKA SONAM WANGDU
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-3762
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jason A. Nielson, Of Counsel,
24 Mungoven & Associates, P.C., New
25 York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Frances W. Fraser, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Justin R.
1 Markel, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
3 Department of Justice, Washington
4 D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Sonam Wangdue, an alleged native and citizen
11 of the Tibetan region of China, seeks review of an August
12 31, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the December 22,
13 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan Vomacka,
14 denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
15 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonam
16 Wangdue, No. A087 468 106 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2012), aff’g No.
17 A087 468 106 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 22, 2010). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
23 2008) (citation omitted). The applicable standards of
24 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
25
2
1 see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d
2 Cir. 2008).
3 The agency may, considering the totality of the
4 circumstances, base a credibility finding on inconsistencies
5 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record
6 evidence without regard to whether they go “to the heart of
7 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
8 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, substantial evidence
9 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
10 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between
11 Wangdue’s testimony and an identity document issued by the
12 Indian government that he used to obtain a visa and enter
13 the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
14 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The agency was not compelled
15 to credit Wangdue’s explanation that the document was
16 fraudulent and obtained from a broker to assist in his U.S.
17 visa application because, aside from the location of his
18 birth, the document contained correct identifying
19 information (name, date of birth, address, father’s name).
20 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). On
21 the other hand, crediting Wangdue’s explanation that the
22 document was false, the submission of that fraudulent
3
1 document to obtain immigration benefits alone was sufficient
2 to find him not credible, as the document was not prepared
3 or used to escape persecution. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480
4 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 The agency identified several other record
6 inconsistencies regarding the dates of Wangdue’s employment
7 in India and whether he lost his Tibetan Freedom Movement
8 Book or merely submitted it for renewal. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 Wangdue did not provide compelling explanations for the
11 inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
12 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination
13 is supported by substantial evidence, the agency did not err
14 in denying Wangdue asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
15 relief because those claims were based on the same factual
16 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
17 Cir. 2006).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
22 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
5