Filed: Jul. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: 11-2052-ag Alam-Begum v. Holder BIA Martinez-Esquivel, IJ A098 350 042 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 DAT
Summary: 11-2052-ag Alam-Begum v. Holder BIA Martinez-Esquivel, IJ A098 350 042 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 DATA..
More
11-2052-ag
Alam-Begum v. Holder
BIA
Martinez-Esquivel, IJ
A098 350 042
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 Richard C. Lee United
3 States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, in the City of New
4 Haven, Connecticut, on the 9th day of July, two thousand
5 twelve.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 Chief Judge,
10 JON O. NEWMAN,
11 ROBERT D. SACK,
12 Circuit Judges.
13 _______________________________________
14
15 ABU NASER ALAM-BEGUM, AKA ABU NASER
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 11-2052-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General; Blair T. O’Connor,
30 Assistant Director; Ari Nazarov,
31 Trial Attorney, Office of
32 Immigration Litigation, Civil
33 Division, United States Department
34 of Justice, 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 Abu Naser Alam-Begum, a native and citizen
6 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 28, 2011, order of
7 the BIA affirming the May 7, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Lourdes Martinez-Esquivel denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abu
11 Naser Alam-Begum, No. A098 350 042 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2011),
12 aff’g No. A098 350 042 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2009).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, including the
17 portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by
18 the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d
19 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-
20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
21 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
22
2
1 The agency denied Alam-Begum’s application based on an
2 adverse credibility finding, including a determination that
3 Alam-begum failed to establish his identity. Because this
4 finding was supported by substantial evidence, we need not
5 consider the agency’s alternative finding that Alam-Begum
6 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear (or a clear
7 probability) of future persecution.1
8 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
9 the agency may, considering the totality of the
10 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s
11 demeanor, the plausibility of his account and
12 inconsistencies in his statements. See 8 U.S.C. §
13 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
14 165 (2d Cir. 2008). We generally afford “particular
15 deference” to an IJ’s credibility finding. See Jin Chen v.
16 United States Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.
17 2005). Alam-Begum argues that the inconsistencies in his
18 asylum applications cited by the IJ are minor, and
19 insufficient to support an adverse credibility
20 determination. However, the IJ did not give them great
1
We also need not consider Alam-Begum’s CAT claim,
which he raises before this Court in a purely conclusory
fashion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 weight, instead relying largely on implausible aspects of
2 Alam-Begum’s account of how he obtained his passport. See
3 generally Dhoumo v. BIA, 416 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 2005)
4 (per curiam) (“The determination of an alien’s nationality
5 or lack thereof is a threshold inquiry in determining the
6 alien’s eligibility for asylum.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
7 (placing burden of proof on the applicant). Alam-Begum
8 claimed that he obtained a passport from the Bangladeshi
9 consulate in New York without filing any paperwork or
10 presenting written proof of his identity, but based solely
11 on the statement of a friend. Moreover, the passport that
12 Alam-Begum obtained was open-ended, even though he claimed
13 to have criminal charges pending against him in Bangladesh.
14 The IJ also relied upon Alam-Begum’s failure to provide
15 details as to these criminal. Cf. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529
16 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A] finding of testimonial
17 vagueness cannot, without more, support an adverse
18 credibility determination unless government counsel or the
19 IJ first attempts to solicit more detail from the alien.”).
20 Despite claiming that he fled Bangladesh-- and was afraid to
21 return-- because of the charges, Alam-Begum did not know
22 definitively whether they were still pending, and was unable
4
1 to provide information about the other individuals arrested
2 or the outcome of their cases. The IJ also noted her
3 observations of Alam-Begum’s demeanor. These factors
4 provide substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse
5 credibility finding.
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
8 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
9 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
10 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
11 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
5
