16-4200
Cisse v. Sessions
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A201 124 006
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 23rd day of February, two thousand
eighteen.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
PETER W. HALL,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
LOSSENY CISSE, AKA JEAN CLAUDE
BIALY,
Petitioner,
v. 16-4200
NAC
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Andrew N.
O’Malley, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Joseph A. O’Connell,
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, U.S. Department of
Justice, 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 Losseny Cisse, a native and citizen of Côte
D’Ivoire, seeks review of a November 29, 2016, decision of
the BIA that affirmed a February 8, 2016, decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Losseny Cisse,
No. A201 124 006 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A201 124
006 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2016). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448
F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standard of
review is substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.
2008). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and
all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a
credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or
responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the consistency
2
between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements .
. . , the internal consistency of each such statement,
[and] the consistency of such statements with other
evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart
of the applicant’s claim.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cisse was
not credible as to his claim that Ivorian police twice
detained and beat him on account of his Dioula ethnicity.
The IJ reasonably relied in small part on Cisse’s
demeanor, noting that he became hesitant and inconsistent
on cross-examination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir.
2005) (recognizing that particular deference is given to
the trier of fact’s assessment of demeanor). That finding
is supported by the record.
The demeanor finding and the overall credibility
determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Li Hua Lin v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). The
agency reasonably found that Cisse gave completely
inconsistent accounts about how he obtained a U.S. visa.
In addition, his testimony was inconsistent with both his
3
asylum application and statements at an asylum interview
about his father’s whereabouts. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Cisse did not provide compelling
explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430
F.3d at 80 (“A petitioner must do more than offer a
plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
(internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original)).
Having questioned Cisse’s credibility, it was
reasonable for the agency to rely further on his failure to
rehabilitate his credibility with corroborating evidence.
“An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony
may bear on credibility, because the absence of
corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
Cir. 2007). Cisse failed to submit statements from anyone
in the Côte D’Ivoire to corroborate his claims.
Given the agency’s finding with respect to Cisse’s
demeanor and the inconsistency of his statements, and given
the lack of corroboration, the agency’s adverse credibility
determination is supported by substantial evidence.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is
4
dispositive of Cisse’s claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based
on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not
reach the agency’s alternative dispositive finding that,
even if Cisse had suffered persecution, conditions in the
Côte D’Ivoire had changed such that any presumption of a
well-founded fear had been rebutted. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
25 (1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule courts and
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe Clerk of Court
5