Filed: Oct. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-294-ag BIA Kane v. Holder Balasquide, IJ A095 589 155 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 TH
Summary: 10-294-ag BIA Kane v. Holder Balasquide, IJ A095 589 155 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..
More
10-294-ag BIA
Kane v. Holder Balasquide, IJ
A095 589 155
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 29 th day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 MADOU KANE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-294-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Yerman & Associates,
24 LLC, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Michael C.
29 Heyse, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, D.C.
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, that the petition for review
6 is DENIED.
7 Madou Kane, a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks
8 review of a December 28, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the
9 February 11, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)Javier
10 Balasquide, which denied his applications for asylum,
11 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
12 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kane, No. A095 589 155
13 (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2009), aff’g No. A095 589 155 (Immig. Ct.
14 N.Y. City Feb. 11, 2008). We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
16 in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
18 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
19 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
20 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
21 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008);
22 Shu Wen Sun v. BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007).
23 As a preliminary matter, we note that we lack
24 jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of CAT relief,
2
1 because Kane failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA.
2 See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). As
3 to asylum and withholding of removal, we deny the petition
4 for review, as the agency’s adverse credibility
5 determination is supported by substantial evidence.
6 In finding Kane not credible, the agency reasonably
7 relied in part on inconsistencies between his testimony and
8 his written asylum applications. See Secaida-Rosales v.
9 INS,
331 F.3d 297, 308-09 (2d Cir. 2003). * Kane’s testimony
10 conflicted with his written asylum applications with respect
11 to whether he was detained together with his family and
12 whether he was allowed to return home after his detention.
13 When Kane was asked to explain the inconsistencies between
14 his applications and his testimony, he faulted the person
15 who had prepared his applications. Given that his testimony
16 was inconsistent with both his initial and amended asylum
17 applications - prepared five years apart by different
18 individuals - the agency was not required to credit his
*
In Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d
Cir. 2008), we recognized that the Real ID Act abrogated
in part the holding in Secaida-Rosales for cases filed
after May 11, 2005, the effective date of the Act. Id.
Because Kane’s application was filed before this date,
Secaida-Rosales remains good law. See Zheng v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 277, 287 n.6 (2d Cir. 2009).
3
1 explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
2 Cir. 2005). Further, contrary to Kane’s argument, the
3 discrepancies the agency relied upon consist of directly
4 contradictory statements, and cannot be explained as mere
5 additional detail. Cf.
Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 308-09.
6 Moreover, because these inconsistencies go to the heart of
7 Kane’s claim of past persecution, i.e., his arrest and
8 detention in 1989, and were “substantial” when measured
9 against the record as a whole, the agency did not err in
10 relying on the inconsistencies to find him not credible.
11 See id.; see also Pavlova v. INS,
441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir.
12 2006).
13 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is
14 further supported by inconsistencies in the documents
15 submitted by Kane, particularly his national identification
16 card, which undermined his claim that he left Mauritania in
17 1989. Kane argues that the IJ erred in relying on the
18 identification card to find him not credible because, based
19 on his testimony that he did not know how or when the
20 identification card was issued, there was no basis to find
21 that he knowingly submitted a fraudulent document. We have
22 held that an IJ must make an explicit finding that the
4
1 applicant knowingly submitted a fraudulent document before
2 using that document as the basis for an adverse credibility
3 finding. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 97-98 (2d
4 Cir. 2008). However, Kane misinterprets the IJ’s finding,
5 as the IJ did not find that Kane had submitted a fraudulent
6 identification card, but rather, taking the card at face
7 value, found that its date of issuance drew into serious
8 question whether Kane left Mauritania in 1989. The IJ thus
9 did not err in relying on the national identification card
10 as a basis for his adverse credibility determination. See
11 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 166 n.3 (2d Cir.
12 2008).
13 Kane further argues that the IJ’s finding regarding the
14 national identification card is “legally erroneous” because
15 the IJ relied on the card to find Kane incredible, but also
16 stated in his decision that he gave “little or no weight” to
17 the identification card. However, the IJ reasonably
18 determined that, to the extent the identification card was
19 entitled to any weight, it undermined Kane’s testimony. See
20 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
21 Cir. 2006). Ultimately, given the inconsistent testimony
22 regarding Kane’s arrest and expulsion from Mauritania, and
23 the submission of documents contradicting his testimony
5
1 regarding his departure from Mauritania, the IJ’s adverse
2 credibility determination was supported by substantial
3 evidence. See Shu Wen Sun, 510 F.3d at 379-80. Because the
4 record supports the IJ’s conclusions, a reasonable fact-
5 finder would not be compelled to conclude to the contrary.
6 See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,
446 F.3d
7 289, 294 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 Finally, since the only evidence of a threat to Kane’s
9 life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse
10 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes
11 success on the claim for withholding of removal. See Paul
12 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Wu Biao Chen
13 v. INS,
344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir. 2003).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
