08-4852-ag
Diallo v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A 095 471 348
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY
ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR
OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH
A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH
THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE
SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE
TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS
ENTERED.
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 10 th day of December, two thousand nine.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
REENA RAGGI,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
ALPHA AMADOU DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v. 08-4852-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., 1 U. S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
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.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Brooklyn, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor,
Assistant Director, John B. Holt,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Alpha Amadou Diallo, a native and citizen of
Guinea, seeks review of the September 3, 2008 order of the
BIA affirming the June 26, 2006 decision of Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alpha Amadou
Diallo, No. A 095 471 348 (B.I.A. Sept. 3, 2008), aff’g No.
A 095 471 348 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 26, 2006). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ's
conclusion that a petitioner is not credible and, without
2
rejecting any of the IJ's grounds for decision, emphasizes
particular aspects of that decision, we will review both the
BIA's and IJ's opinions – or more precisely, we review the
IJ's decision including the portions not explicitly
discussed by the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual
findings, including adverse credibility determinations,
under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d
Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and the
application of law to undisputed fact. See Passi v.
Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination
that Diallo was not credible. The IJ identified numerous
discrepancies between Diallo’s testimony and documentary
evidence, as well as internal inconsistencies in his
testimony, regarding, inter alia, his membership, role in,
and knowledge of the Rally for the People of Guinea party;
and the location, manner, and consequences of his arrests
and interrogations. More generally, the IJ found that
Diallo “was not a persuasive witness,” insofar as he
repeatedly “changed his answers on direct” and “between
3
direct and cross.” IJ Op. at 17. Finally, although Diallo
offered explanations for certain of these inconsistencies, a
reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to credit them.
See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
Because Diallo’s claims for withholding of removal and
CAT relief are based on the same factual predicate as his
asylum claim, the IJ’s properly supported adverse
credibility determination defeats all of Diallo’s claims.
See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal is
DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
By:___________________________
4