08-3687-ag
Ramsaran v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A097 532 772
A097 532 888
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 27 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROGER J. MINER,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 GOBERDHAN RAMSARAN, DONNA
15 SEECHARAN,
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 08-3687-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
21 GENERAL, 1
22 Respondent.
23 _______________________________________
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONERS: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York,
2 New York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Barry J. Pettinato,
6 Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz,
7 Attorney, Office of Immigration
8 Litigation, Civil Division, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
14 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
15 review is DENIED.
16 Petitioners Goberdhan Ramsaran and Donna Seecharan,
17 both natives and citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, seek
18 review of a June 26, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the
19 February 19, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
20 Barbara A. Nelson, denying their applications for
21 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
22 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ramsaran and Seecharan, Nos.
23 A097 532 772/888 (B.I.A. June 26, 2008), aff’g Nos. A097 532
24 772/888 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 19, 2008). We assume the
25 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
26 procedural history of the case.
27 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
28 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
2
1 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
2 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
4 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
5 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
6 credibility determination. 2 As the IJ found, Ramsaran’s
7 testimony conflicted with Seecharan’s. Ramsaran testified
8 that he had a fight with a police officer one night and was
9 arrested the evening of the next day, whereas Seecharan
10 testified that the altercation occurred during the day, and
11 that Ramsaran was arrested the evening of that same day.
12 The agency had authority to rely on this discrepancy in
13 finding Petitioners not credible. See 8 U.S.C. §
14 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
15 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 Having called Petitioners’ testimony into question, the
17 IJ reasonably drew an adverse inference from their failure
18 to provide any evidence corroborating their claim. See Biao
2
There is no merit to Petitioners’ argument that the
agency applied an inappropriately stringent standard or
that the BIA failed to make a credibility determination.
To the contrary, the IJ made an adverse credibility
determination, applying the proper standard, and the BIA
affirmed that determination.
3
1 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
2 Furthermore, the IJ reasonably declined to credit
3 Petitioners’ explanations for the absence of such evidence.
4 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
5 Since Petitioners’ claims for withholding of removal
6 and CAT relief were based on the same factual predicate, the
7 adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily
8 precludes success on those claims. See Paul v. Gonzales,
9 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we need
10 not reach the IJ’s alternative burden of proof findings.
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
23
4