11-3047
Voufo v. Holder
BIA
Montante, Jr., IJ
A095 172 121
A079 066 249
A089 252 879
A095 172 124
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 14th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12 MIRABELLE MEKATIO VOUFO,
13 PIERRE VOUFO, LOVELINE TSAGUE VOUFO,
14 FRANCK-AUGUSTE NZAKEUPOU VOUFO,
15
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 11-3047
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: Mirabelle Mekatio Voufo, Pierre
26 Voufo, Loveline Tsague Voufo,
27 Franck-Auguste Nzakeupou Voufo
28 pro se, Orange, New Jersey.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; John S. Hogan,
3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen
4 Guiffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney,
5 Office of Immigration Litigation,
6 Civil Division, United States
7 Department of Justice, Washington,
8 D.C.
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DENIED.
14 Petitioners, natives and citizens of Cameroon, seek
15 review of a June 27, 2011, order of the BIA, affirming the
16 May 19, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip J.
17 Montante, Jr., which denied Mirabelle Mekatio Voufo’s
18 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
19 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
20 In re Mirabelle Mekatio Voufo, Pierre Voufo, Loveline Tsague
21 Voufo, Franck-Auguste Nzakeupou Voufo, Nos. A095 172 121/
22 A079 066 249/A089 252 879/A095 172 124 (B.I.A. June 27,
23 2011), aff’g Nos. A095 172 121/A079 066 249/A089 252
24 879/A095 172 124 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo May 19, 2009). We
25 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
26 and procedural history in this case.
27 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
28 both the BIA's and IJ's opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
29 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards
2
1 of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. §
2 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
3 Cir. 2009).
4 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
5 such as this one, the agency may, considering the totality
6 of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an
7 asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her
8 account, and inconsistencies in her statements, without
9 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
10 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
11 In finding Voufo not credible, the agency reasonably
12 relied on discrepancies between Voufo’s testimony and her
13 Cameroonian passport with respect to the date on which Voufo
14 obtained the passport, and Voufo’s testimony and asylum
15 application with respect to the circumstances surrounding
16 her release from detention following her May 1997 arrest.
17 See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
18 2008); Iouri v. Ashcroft, 534 F.3d 76, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2007).
19 A reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to credit
20 Voufo’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi
21 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
22 Moreover, the IJ reasonably found that while Voufo
23 indicated in her asylum application that, during her May
24 1997 detention, she had been forced to watch other detainees
3
1 being molested, she did not mention this material detail
2 when asked on direct examination to describe how she had
3 been mistreated during her May 1997 detention. See Xiu Xia
4 Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 n.3 (holding that for purposes of
5 analyzing a credibility determination, “[a]n inconsistency
6 and an omission are functionally equivalent”). Furthermore,
7 the agency reasonably found that while Voufo’s husband,
8 Pierre, testified that he had been fully aware that Voufo
9 had been arrested on three occasions on account of her
10 membership in, and active support of, the Union of Cameroon
11 Democratic Forces (“UFDC”), Pierre’s asylum application
12 (which had been denied in a separate proceeding and which
13 Voufo submitted as evidence in support of her application
14 for relief) did not indicate that Voufo had been arrested,
15 detained, or beaten for having participated in UFDC
16 activities. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 n.3. A
17 reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to credit
18 Pierre’s explanation that he did not know that he was
19 required to indicate in his asylum application every
20 incident in which Voufo had been arrested and detained given
21 that Pierre’s asylum application expressly asked whether he
22 or any member of his family had ever been accused, charged,
23 arrested, detained, convicted and sentenced, or imprisoned
24 in his country. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
4
1 Moreover, the IJ reasonably relied on Voufo’s failure
2 to present adequate corroboration to support her claims that
3 she had been detained for two weeks following her May 1997
4 arrest, that she had received medical attention for injuries
5 she allegedly sustained during each of her three stays in
6 detention, and that her husband’s friend was able to procure
7 a Cameroonian passport on her behalf without her direct
8 involvement. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273
9 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the agency may rely on a lack
10 of corroborative evidence where an applicant’s testimony is
11 not otherwise credible).
12 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not
13 be compelled to conclude to the contrary, the agency’s
14 adverse credibility determination was supported by
15 substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66.
16 The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of
17 Voufo’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
18 relief, as those claims were based on the same factual
19 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
20 2006).
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
23 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
24 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
6