10-3708-ag
Bamba v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice
BIA
Morace, IJ
A088 775 987
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 28th day of October, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 _____________________________________
13
14 YAH BAMBA, a.k.a. YAYA CAMARA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-3708-ag
18 NAC
19 U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Brian I. Kaplan, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Ada E. Bosque, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Jem C. Sponzo,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Washington
30 D.C.
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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Yah Bamba, a native and citizen of the Ivory
6 Coast, seeks review of the August 17, 2010, order of the BIA
7 affirming the October 27, 2008, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Philip Morace denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on credibility grounds.
11 In re Yah Bamba, No. A088 775 987 (B.I.A. Aug. 17, 2010),
12 aff’g No. A088 775 987 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2008).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
20 (2d Cir. 2009).
21
2
1 We find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2 adverse credibility determination. As an initial matter,
3 Bamba does not challenge the BIA’s finding that, despite
4 claiming to be a supporter of the political party Rally for
5 Republicans (“RDR”), he could not explain what the acronym
6 stood for. Accordingly, that finding stands as a valid
7 basis for the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
8 See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).
9 With respect to the findings that Bamba does challenge,
10 each was proper. Bamba argues that the agency erred in
11 finding that the inconsistent accounts he and his sister
12 provided regarding how he discovered his mother’s death, and
13 when his sister learned of the death, undermined his
14 credibility, asserting that “the discrepancies were minor
15 and did not go to the crux of [his] claim.” However, under
16 the REAL ID Act, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or
17 omission in making an adverse credibility determination as
18 long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that
19 an asylum applicant is not credible,” without regard to
20 whether those inconsistencies go “'to the heart of the
21 applicant’s claim.'” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
3
1 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original) (quoting 8
2 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Furthermore, although Bamba
3 contends that he provided a “perfectly plausible explanation
4 for any discrepancies,” specifically that he and his sister
5 “had little formal education and . . . were being asked
6 about some events that had taken place some four to six
7 years earlier,” that explanation would not compel the agency
8 to conclude that he was credible. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
9 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, Bamba testified
10 that he did not have any difficulty understanding the
11 interpreter’s questions during his asylum interview, and
12 neither he nor his sister testified that they had any
13 difficulty answering questions due to their lack of
14 education.
15 Bamba also argues that the agency erred in relying on
16 the Assessment to Refer produced by the officer who
17 conducted his asylum interview because it was unreliable.
18 We have held that while the record of an asylum interview is
19 more reliable when it describes the specific questions asked
20 or records the interview verbatim, an interview record even
21 without such assurances of reliability may be relied on as a
22 basis for an adverse credibility determination as long as it
4
1 contains a “meaningful, clear, and reliable summary of the
2 statements made by [the applicant] at the interview.” See
3 Maladho Djehe Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 632 (2d Cir.
4 2006). Here, the record contained both the officer’s
5 Assessment to Refer and his handwritten notes from the
6 interview itself. Thus, although, as Bamba points out, the
7 Assessment and the handwritten notes do not contain
8 precisely the same information, the two documents together
9 provided the agency a “clear[] and reliable summary of the
10 statements made.” Diallo, 445 F.3d at 631-33 (internal
11 citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, despite
12 Bamba’s assertion that there was no information regarding
13 the quality of the interpretation, he testified that he
14 brought his own interpreter and had no difficulty
15 understanding the translation.
16 Ultimately, the agency’s credibility determination was
17 supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Therefore,
19 it did not err in denying Bamba’s applications for asylum,
20 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
21 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
22
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
6