Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-1216-ag Camara v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A095 589 087 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: 10-1216-ag Camara v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A095 589 087 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
10-1216-ag
Camara v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A095 589 087
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 9th day of March, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 SAIDOU CAMARA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-1216-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jennifer A.
29 Singer, Trial Attorney; Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, D.C.
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
6 is DENIED.
7 Saidou Camara, an alleged native and citizen of
8 Mauritania, seeks review of a March 5, 2010, decision of the
9 BIA affirming the June 25, 2008, decision of Immigration
10 Judge (“IJ”) Noel A. Ferris, which denied Camara’s
11 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
12 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Saidou
13 Camara, No. A095 589 087 (B.I.A. Mar. 5, 2010), aff’g No.
14 A095 589 087 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 25, 2008). We
15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
16 and procedural history of this case.
17 Because the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision,
18 we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency
19 determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146
20 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are
21 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v.
22 Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
23 Contrary to Camara’s argument in this Court,
2
1 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
2 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on
3 inconsistencies in Camara’s testimony and documentation, as
4 well as the vagueness and incoherence of his testimony and
5 his unresponsive answers to questions. See Diallo v. INS,
6 232 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2000); Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446
7 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006); Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d
8 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ pointed to specific
9 inconsistencies, including that: when asked what he did with
10 the community group, Camara testified that he merely sold
11 books and donated a small percentage to the group, and
12 “didn’t do anything else,” but his asylum application
13 indicated that he also participated in rallies; when asked
14 what happened to the Senegalese passport he allegedly used
15 to enter the United States, Camara testified both that he
16 threw it away and that he lost it; and Camara testified that
17 he stayed in Seattle for five months on arriving in the
18 United States, then changed his answer to three months, but
19 his application indicated that he lived in Seattle for two
20 years.
21 Based on these inconsistencies, as well as the
22 incidents of vagueness, incoherence, and lack of
3
1 responsiveness cited by the IJ, the adverse credibility
2 determination is supported by substantial evidence. Tu Lin,
3 446 F.3d at 402. We do not reach the IJ’s alternative
4 conclusion that Camara failed to meet his burden of proof,
5 as Camara’s claims all were based on the same factual
6 predicate, and thus the adverse credibility determination
7 was a proper basis for denial of asylum, as well as
8 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
9 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v.
10 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
14
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
4
