Filed: Feb. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-370-ag Jalloh v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A078 701 610 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: 10-370-ag Jalloh v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A078 701 610 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
10-370-ag
Jalloh v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A078 701 610
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 2 nd day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 MOHAMED JALLOH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-370-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie
28 Notarino Hennes, Trial Attorney,
29 Civil Division, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
31 Department of Justice, Washington
32 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, Mohamed Jalloh, a native and citizen of
6 Sierra Leone, seeks review of a January 11, 2010, decision
7 of the BIA affirming the March 24, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed
11 Jalloh, No. A078 701 610 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2010), aff’g No.
12 A078 701 610 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March 24, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 BIA’s and IJ’s opinions, including portions of the IJ’s
17 opinion not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui
18 Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The
19 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
20 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d
21 Cir. 2008); Dong Gao v. BIA,
482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.
22 2007).
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
2 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on
3 several inconsistencies in the record that went to the heart
4 of Jalloh’s claim. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d
5 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003). With respect to the manner in
6 which he was attacked, Jalloh provided testimony that
7 differed from his statements to a medical doctor and a
8 psychologist. See
id. Further, Jalloh was unable to
9 consistently and convincingly testify as to how he obtained
10 a letter intended to corroborate his claim that he had been
11 involved in a local militia, that he had been attacked, and
12 that his father had been killed. See
id.
13 In addition, the agency reasonably relied on Jalloh’s
14 submission of a birth certificate, found to be counterfeit,
15 and a passport, obtained through reliance on that birth
16 certificate and found to come from unofficial sources, to
17 support its adverse credibility determination. See Rui Ying
18 Lin v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006); Zaman v.
19 Mukasey,
514 F.3d 233, 239 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Matter of
20 O-D-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1079 (BIA 1998) (drawing “adverse
21 inferences” from an applicant’s attempt to establish
22 nationality and identity by documents that a forensics
3
1 report found to be false, and from his failure to refute or
2 explain the forensics report’s conclusions)).
3 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination
4 was supported by substantial evidence, it did not err in
5 relying on that determination to deny Jalloh’s applications
6 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because
7 those claims all were based on the same factual predicates.
8 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006);
9 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523
10 (2d Cir. 2005). Given that the adverse credibility
11 determination is dispositive of Jalloh’s application, we do
12 not reach the agency’s alternative holding that the
13 government had rebutted any fear of future persecution with
14 evidence of a fundamental change of circumstances in Sierra
15 Leone.
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
21
22
4
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
5
