Filed: Mar. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-11 Wane v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A089 771 480 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: 12-11 Wane v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A089 771 480 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
12-11
Wane v. Holder
BIA
Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ
A089 771 480
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 28th day of March, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ABDOUL WAHAB TAHIROU WANE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-11
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,
27 Assistant Director; Katharine E.
28 Clark, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 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 Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, a native and
6 citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a December 5, 2011,
7 order of the BIA affirming the May 17, 2010, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa denying
9 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, No. A089 771 480 (B.I.A. Dec. 5,
12 2011), aff’g No. A089 771 480 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17,
13 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 In challenging the agency’s denial of asylum and
22 withholding of removal, Wane argues that he suffered past
2
1 persecution and will face future persecution on account of
2 his sexuality. However, he does not meaningfully challenge
3 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. That
4 credibility determination forecloses Wane’s claim of past
5 persecution, because the agency found that his testimony
6 regarding his past mistreatment in Mauritania was not
7 credible. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 154-56 (2d
8 Cir. 2006). And it also forecloses Wane’s claim that he
9 will face future persecution on account of his sexuality,
10 because, as we read the BIA’s decision, the agency concluded
11 that Wane did not credibly demonstrate that he was a gay
12 man.
13 The agency also concluded that Wane did not suffer past
14 persecution or demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
15 persecution on account of his race or ethnicity. Wane does
16 not identify any errors in that conclusion.1
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
1
Nor does the brief challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief.
3
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
4