Filed: Jan. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4379-ag Ademi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A088 372 178 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
Summary: 09-4379-ag Ademi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A088 372 178 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..
More
09-4379-ag
Ademi v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A088 372 178
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 4 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 FITIM ADEMI,
14
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-4379-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
30 Senior Litigation Counsel; Kristin
31 K. Edison, Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, U.S. Department of
3 Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner, Fitim Ademi, a native of the former
10 Yugoslavia and citizen of Serbia, seeks review of a
11 September 28, 2009, decision of the BIA affirming the May
12 28, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A.
13 Nelson pretermitting his application for asylum as untimely
14 and denying his applications for withholding of removal and
15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
16 Fitim Ademi, No. A088 372 178 (B.I.A. Sept. 28, 2009), aff’g
17 No. A088 372 178 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 28, 2008). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history of the case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
21 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
23 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
24 standards of review are well-established. See Corovic v.
2
1 Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v.
2 Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 As an initial matter, we note that Ademi explicitly
4 declined to challenge the IJ’s pretermission of his asylum
5 application as untimely. We therefore consider only the
6 agency’s denial of Ademi’s applications for withholding of
7 removal and CAT relief based on an adverse credibility
8 determination.
9 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
10 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably found Ademi
11 not credible because his testimony regarding the specific
12 incidents of harm he suffered was inconsistent with his
13 asylum application, a letter from his parents, and the
14 country conditions evidence in the record. See 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
16 F.3d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, no reasonable
17 factfinder would have been compelled to credit his
18 explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v.
19 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally,
20 the IJ’s unchallenged finding that Ademi appeared unsure of
21 his own testimony provided further support for the IJ’s
22 adverse credibility determination. See
id. at 81 n.1; see
3
1 also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
2 In light of the adverse credibility determination, the
3 agency did not err in denying Ademi’s applications for
4 withholding of removal and CAT relief because the only
5 evidence that Ademi would be persecuted or tortured depended
6 on his credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see
7 also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
4
