Filed: Sep. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-3095-ag Anne v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A078 358 710 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 N
Summary: 09-3095-ag Anne v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A078 358 710 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 NO..
More
09-3095-ag
Anne v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A078 358 710
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 16 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ABOU YERO ANNE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-3095-ag
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Brooklyn, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Leslie
29 McKay, Assistant Director, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Abou Yero Anne, a native and citizen of Mauritania,
6 seeks review of a June 22, 2009, order of the BIA affirming
7 the August 29, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Robert Weisel, which denied his applications for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abou Yero Anne, No. A078 358
11 710 (B.I.A. June 22, 2009), aff’g No. A078 358 710 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2007). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
17 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) . The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) .
21 The agency’s adverse credibility determination was
22 adequately supported by the evidence. See Secaida-Rosales v.
2
1 INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding that a n
2 adverse credibility determination must be based on
3 “specific, cogent reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to
4 the finding).
5 The agency reasonably determined that the
6 inconsistencies between Anne’s testimony and written
7 applications undermined his credibility. Specifically,
8 although Anne testified that nothing happened to him during
9 his 1992 detention in Mauritania, his 2000 asylum
10 application indicates that he was “tortured” while in
11 detention and his 2006 application indicates that he was
12 beaten for three hours. This specific discrepancy, which is
13 self-evident and relates directly to the basis of Anne’s
14 claim of persecution, is adequate support for the adverse
15 credibility determination. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of
16 Homeland Security,
446 F.3d 289, 294 (2d Cir. 2006). To the
17 extent that Anne offered explanations for this discrepancy,
18 the IJ was not compelled to credit them. See Majidi v.
19 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
20 Moreover, contrary to Anne’s assertion, the IJ did not
21 err in finding that his failure to provide reasonably
22 available corroboration further undermined the veracity of
3
1 his claim. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
2 Cir. 2007) ; Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d
3 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 Finally, because Anne failed to meet his burden of
5 proof for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the higher
6 burden required to demonstrate eligibility for withholding
7 of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d
8 Cir. 2006). Anne does not challenge the IJ’s denial of his
9 CAT claim. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS,
508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6
10 (2d Cir. 2007).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
4
