Filed: Feb. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-5806-ag Diallo v. Holder BIA LaForest, IJ A099 083 116 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 T
Summary: 08-5806-ag Diallo v. Holder BIA LaForest, IJ A099 083 116 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..
More
08-5806-ag
Diallo v. Holder
BIA
LaForest, IJ
A099 083 116
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 1 st day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ___________________________________
12
13 MAMADOU MOUSTAPHA DIALLO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-5806-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., 1
19 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ___________________________________
22
23
24
25
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Civil Division, Ernesto H.
6 Molina Jr., Assistant Director,
7 Vanessa Otero Lefort, Attorney,
8 Office of Immigration Litigation,
9 U.S. Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Petitioner Mamadou Moustapha Diallo, a native and
17 citizen of Guinea, seeks review of an October 31, 2008 order
18 of the BIA affirming the May 16, 2007 decision of
19 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte LaForest denying Diallo’s
20 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
21 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mamadou
22 Moustapha Diallo, No. A099 083 116 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2008),
23 aff’g No. A099 083 116 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 16, 2007).
24 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
25 and procedural history in this case.
26 When the BIA issues an opinion that fully adopts the
27 IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye
28 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007).
-2-
1 We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse
2 credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence
3 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, e.g., Corovic
4 v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de
5 novo questions of law and the application of law to
6 undisputed fact. Passi v. Mukasey,
535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d
7 Cir. 2008).
8 We conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
9 determination that Diallo was not credible. As the IJ
10 found: (1) Diallo’s testimony that his nephew was unable to
11 find out the name of the prison in which his wife was
12 detained was inconsistent with the letter from his nephew
13 stating that his wife was detained at the Central House of
14 the Surete of Conakry; (2) Diallo’s testimony that he joined
15 the Union for Progress and Renewal-North American Federation
16 (“UPR-NAF”) when he first arrived in the United States was
17 inconsistent with the letter from UPR-NAF stating that he
18 joined the Federation in May 2007; and (3) that letter bears
19 the wrong name for Diallo.
20 The IJ reasonably found that these inconsistencies go
21 to the heart of his claim for asylum. See Secaida-Rosales
22 v. INS,
331 F.3d 297, 307-08 (2d Cir. 2003). The wrong name
-3-
1 on the UPR-NAF letter and the inconsistency between that
2 letter and his testimony regarding when he joined the
3 Federation call into question whether he is actually a
4 member of that organization and bear directly on whether the
5 Guinean authorities would seek to persecute him. Moreover,
6 the inconsistency between his testimony and his nephew’s
7 letter concerning his wife’s whereabouts renders his wife’s
8 detention questionable, and his wife’s arrest forms a
9 significant part of Diallo’s claim that he fears returning
10 to Guinea.
11 Because the only evidence of a threat to Diallo’s life
12 or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse
13 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes
14 success on his claims for withholding of removal and CAT
15 relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual
16 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
17 2006).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED.
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
22
23
24
25
-4-
