15-1024
Coulibaly v. Lynch
BIA
Hom, IJ
A200 738 709
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 20th day of July, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LASSINA COULIBALY, AKA LASSINE
14 TOURE,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 15-1024
18 NAC
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
29 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior
30 Litigation Counsel; Anthony J.
31 Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of
32 Immigration Litigation, United
33 States Department of Justice,
34 Washington, 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 Lassina Coulibaly, a native and citizen of
6 the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a March 10, 2015, decision
7 of the BIA, affirming an August 15, 2013, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Coulibaly’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lassina
11 Coulibaly, No. A200 738 709 (B.I.A. Mar. 10, 2015), aff’g
12 No. A200 738 709 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 15, 2013). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
16 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
17 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
18 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards
19 of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
20 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
2
1 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on
2 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and
3 other record evidence “without regard to whether” they go
4 “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
7 that Coulibaly was not credible as to his claim that he and
8 his family had been tortured in the Ivory Coast on account
9 of their ethnicity and political opinion.
10 The agency reasonably relied on several record
11 inconsistencies. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 164-67.
12 Coulibaly’s testimony that he had personally applied for and
13 obtained his Ivory Coast identification card prior to his
14 departure from that country in March 2009 was inconsistent
15 with the card, which was issued in August 2009, five months
16 after his departure. When confronted with this
17 inconsistency, Coulibaly was unresponsive before ultimately
18 admitting that he had not been truthful in his earlier
19 testimony and that he had not received the card until after
20 his arrival in the United States. See Siewe v. Gonzales,
21 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (providing that an asylum
3
1 applicant’s presentation of “a single false document or a
2 single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to
3 the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s
4 uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence . . . [and] may
5 also influence the IJ’s assessment of . . . the credibility
6 of the petitioner.”).
7 In addition, Coulibaly’s testimony and the birth
8 certificate he submitted were inconsistent as to when he was
9 born and whether he obtained the certificate after his
10 departure from the Ivory Coast. And Coulibaly’s sister
11 attested in her affidavit that she saw her father’s
12 “lifeless” body lying on the ground where he had been shot,
13 but she testified inconsistently that she had not seen his
14 body. When confronted with their inconsistent statements,
15 Coulibaly and his sister did not provide compelling
16 explanations. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
17 Cir. 2005).
18 Having questioned Coulibaly’s credibility, the IJ
19 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain
20 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony. See
21 Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
4
1 Furthermore, there is no merit to Coulibaly’s argument that
2 his country conditions evidence independently established a
3 pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Dioula in
4 the Ivory Coast such that he has a well-founded fear of
5 persecution because, even if credible as to his ethnicity,
6 he was not credible as to his assertion that he is Ivorian.
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (requiring applicant to
8 demonstrate that he is similarly situated to the group
9 against whom there is a pattern or practice of persecution).
10 Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration,
11 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported
12 by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
13 see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-68. That finding is
14 dispositive of Coulibaly’s claims for asylum and withholding
15 of removal because those claims are based on the same
16 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
17 (2d Cir. 2006). Coulibaly does not challenge the BIA’s
18 determination that he abandoned his CAT claim.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6