13-2026
Cisse v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A087 448 148
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 30th day of June, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LACINA CISSE, AKA ALFOUSSEINY DEMBELE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2026
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
27 Director; Surell Brady, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Lacina Cisse, a native and citizen of Ivory Coast,
6 seeks review of an April 30, 2013, decision of the BIA
7 affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) July 6, 2011, denial
8 of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lacina Cisse, No.
10 A087 448 148 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2013), aff’g No. A087 448 148
11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 6, 2011). We assume the parties’
12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
13 of this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See
16 Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The
17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
19 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 For asylum applications, like Cisse’s, governed by the
21 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
22 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on omissions
23 and inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other
2
1 record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the
2 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166
4 n.3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
5 credibility determination.
6 The record supports four of the IJ’s five inconsistency
7 findings. Cisse’s application omitted any reference to a
8 death threat by police in 2004. This death threat was a
9 significant detail, and its absence from Cisse’s application
10 was a proper factor for consideration in light of the other
11 inconsistencies. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
12 Cisse’s application stated that he was beaten in 2008
13 “during [his] arrest,” but his testimony reframed the
14 incident, making no mention of any harm during arrest, and
15 instead, alleging he was beaten every day for two weeks
16 during his detention. The IJ was not required to credit
17 Cisse’s explanation that the preparer of his application
18 must have made a mistake. As the IJ explained, the
19 Government raised the issue of whether any corrections
20 needed to be made to Cisse’s asylum application before the
21 merits hearing began, and Cisse’s counsel, who had
22 represented him for over two years, responded that no
3
1 changes were needed. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
2 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d
3 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2009).
4 Cisse also testified that officials told him that he
5 would be killed if he was arrested again, while his
6 application merely stated that he was told he would be
7 contacted if he “was needed by the authorit[ies].” Cisse’s
8 explanation was non-responsive because it did not explain
9 why he testified that he was specifically told he would be
10 killed, and not just arrested. Thus, the IJ was not
11 compelled to credit his explanation. See Majidi, 430 F.3d
12 at 80-81.
13 In addition, Cisse’s responses to questions about his
14 future fear were difficult to pin down. Cisse claimed
15 devotion to the RDR political party, but he resisted
16 returning to Ivory Coast even after a member of the RDR
17 attained power. Although he was asked several times to
18 clarify why he could not return to Ivory Coast when a leader
19 who was sympathetic to his political beliefs and ethnic
20 group was in power, Cisse gave a variety of answers and
21 ultimately admitted he did not have any evidence to support
22 his allegation that his political opponents had retained
23 authority.
4
1 The final inconsistency finding by the IJ is not
2 supported by the record. The IJ stated that Cisse’s
3 application said that police detained him at a political
4 meeting in 2008, but that he testified that police stopped
5 him as he walked home. The IJ misstated the record. Cisse
6 testified that police stopped him “before [he was] going
7 home” and reiterated on cross-examination that he was “about
8 to go home” when police arrived. Despite this error, given
9 the other inconsistencies cited by the IJ, as well as the
10 lack of corroboration and Cisse’s false statements to a
11 consulate official discussed below, this one erroneous
12 finding does not require remand.
13 Cisse’s admission that he lied to a U.S. consular
14 official in Mali to secure a visa, despite being under no
15 immediate threat of harm, further supports the adverse
16 credibility determination. Lin Zhong v. U.S. DOJ, 480 F.3d
17 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006) (“an IJ’s application of the maxim
18 falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false
19 in everything] may at times be appropriate”). Additionally,
20 Cisse has waived any challenge to the IJ’s corroboration
21 finding by not raising it in his brief. See Yueqing Zhang
22 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s
23 finding that there was a lack of corroboration remains a
5
1 valid basis supporting the denial of relief. See Shunfu Li,
2 529 F.3d at 146-47.
3 Considering Cisse’s prior falsehoods, the
4 inconsistencies in his claims, and the lack of
5 corroboration, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
6 supported by the “totality of the circumstances.” Xiu Xia
7 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. As all of Cisse’s claims share the
8 same factual predicate, the adverse credibility
9 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
11 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Cisse’s pending
14 motion for a stay is DISMISSED as moot.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
6