16-1098
Panthi v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 239 154
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SUMAN PANTHI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-1098
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General, Greg D. Mack,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel,
28 Christina P. Greer, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Suman Panthi, a native and citizen of Nepal,
6 seeks review of a March 14, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming
7 a January 6, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 denying Panthi’s application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Suman Panthi, No. A205 239 154 (B.I.A. Mar. 14,
11 2016), aff’g No. A205 239 154 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6,
12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are
17 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v.
18 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
20 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on the plausibility
21 of an applicant’s account or inconsistencies in her statements
2
1 and other record evidence with or “without regard to whether”
2 those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s
3 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
4 at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
5 determination that Panthi was not credible.
6 1. The agency reasonably determined that Panthi
7 undermined her credibility when she could not identify other
8 members of the Nepali Congress Party (“NCP”) who had been
9 attacked in the same incident. When asked specifically about
10 a fellow NCP member who, according to Panthi’s written
11 statement, was killed that night, she explained that she thought
12 the original question referred only to senior NCP members. But
13 the original question contained no reference to rank or
14 seniority, and the agency was not required to credit her
15 explanation. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. Even after the
16 question was clarified, Panthi could not name the other NCP
17 members who were harmed, including the one who submitted a
18 letter in support of Panthi’s asylum application. The agency
19 reasonably found that this contradiction and lack of
20 familiarity with her own evidence impaired her credibility.
21 See Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004)
3
1 overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
2 Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 2. The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies
4 between Panthi’s written statement and testimony, on one hand,
5 and letters from fellow NCP members, on the other. Panthi
6 testified that she was attacked while she was alone, having
7 separated from other NCP members; a letter from fellow NCP
8 member indicates that they were attacked as a group. The
9 agency’s inference is tied to the language of the letters and
10 we cannot make an inference to the contrary. See Siewe v.
11 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007) (affording
12 deference to the agency’s inference so long as it is “tethered
13 to the evidentiary record” and explaining that “record support
14 for a contrary inference—even one more plausible or more
15 natural—does not suggest error”).
16 Finally, Panthi challenges the agency’s treatment of her
17 corroborating evidence. Letters from fellow NCP members that
18 were inconsistent with her version of events did not
19 rehabilitate her testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496
20 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to
21 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility,
4
1 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
2 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
3 been called into question.”). Moreover, the agency did not err
4 in giving diminished weight to the letters from Panthi’s father
5 and fellow NPC members. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334
6 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to diminished weight given to evidence
7 “submitted by an interested witness”); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
8 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that
9 the weight afforded to evidence in immigration proceedings
10 “lies largely within the discretion of the IJ” (internal
11 quotation marks omitted)).
12 Given the inconsistencies relating to one of the main
13 allegations of past harm, the agency’s adverse credibility
14 determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu
15 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66; Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland
16 Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006). That determination is
17 dispositive of Panthi’s claims for asylum, withholding of
18 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on
19 the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
20 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
21
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
6 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
8 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6