09-2229-ag
Samake v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A 099 930 960
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 9 th day of March, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
PETER W. HALL,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
ISSOUFOU SAMAKE, a.k.a. ISSA DIARRA,
Petitioner,
v. 09-2229-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Jessica E.
Sherman, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington
DC
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Issoufou Samake, allegedly a native and
citizen of Cote D’Ivoire, seeks review of the April 27, 2009
order of the BIA affirming the November 1, 2007 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
Issoufou Samake, No. A 099 930 960 (B.I.A. April 27, 2009),
aff’g No. A 099 930 960 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2007).
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision. See Xue
Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Samake argues that “there is no reason apparent in the
record, and no reason given by either the IJ or the BIA, to
doubt [Samake]’s clear testimony as to his own identity, and
2
therefore the IJ’s decision to base his adverse credibility
determination as to [Samake]’s identity on one inauthentic
document was improper.” However, in its decision, the BIA
specifically declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, finding instead that the passport and
identification document Samake submitted “failed to satisfy
his burden of proof in these proceedings.” Therefore, the
BIA’s decision rested on the sufficiency of the evidence
Samake presented, not his credibility. We have held that an
applicant’s failure to establish his identity is alone
sufficient to deny relief. See Borovikova v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 435 F.3d 151, 158 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, as the BIA
noted, Samake was not living in Cote D’Ivoire when the
documents were issued, and he admitted during his testimony
that the fingerprint on his identification card did not
belong to him. Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying
Samake’s application for asylum, and denying withholding of
removal and CAT relief, both of which require even higher
standards of proof.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3