Filed: Apr. 19, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-1954-ag Marku v. Holder BIA Brennan, IJ A097 965 534 A097 965 535 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 DATAB
Summary: 10-1954-ag Marku v. Holder BIA Brennan, IJ A097 965 534 A097 965 535 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 DATABA..
More
10-1954-ag
Marku v. Holder
BIA
Brennan, IJ
A097 965 534
A097 965 535
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 19th day of April, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LUC MARKU, ELIZABETA MARKU,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 10-1954-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Michael J. Lacey, Grosse Pointe
24 Farms, Michigan.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Jennifer Williams, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioners Luc Marku and Elizabeta Marku
6 (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Albania, seek
7 review of an April 19, 2010 order of the BIA affirming the
8 April 24, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel
9 Brennan, pretermitting their asylum application and denying
10 their application for withholding of removal and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Marku,
12 No. A097 965 534/535 (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2010), aff’g No. A097
13 965 534/535 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 24, 2008). We assume
14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history of the case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
17 both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
18 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
19 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513
21 (2d Cir. 2009).
22
2
1 In finding Petitioners not credible, the IJ reasonably
2 relied on the false documents they submitted to the
3 immigration court, including (1) an Italian passport, which
4 Luc Marku testified that he acquired in Spain and used to
5 enter the United States, (2) a copy of Luc Marku’s birth
6 certificate, (3) a document indicating Luc Marku’s
7 membership in the Democracy Party in Albania, (4) a document
8 indicating that Luc Marku’s parents suffered persecution,
9 and (5) a document indicating that Luc Marku had received
10 money from the Institute of Politically Persecuted
11 Integration. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d
12 Cir. 2007) (finding that “even ancillary evidence sometimes
13 supports” applying the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in
14 omnibus). Because the passport, which was not among the
15 documents Petitioners originally submitted to the asylum
16 office, bore the same photograph as the four previously
17 submitted fraudulent documents, the IJ reasonably inferred
18 that Petitioners had submitted the passport to mislead the
19 court regarding their date and place of entry into the
20 United States. Moreover, as the IJ found, although Luc
21 Marku testified that he was not aware that fraudulent
22 documents were submitted to the asylum office on his behalf,
23 he, with new counsel, later resubmitted some of the same
3
1 fraudulent documents to the immigration court.
2 Additionally, because Petitioners’ fraudulent evidence
3 related to events at the heart of their claim—that Luc Marku
4 suffered persecution based on his membership in the
5 Democratic Party—the IJ reasonably relied on the false
6 documents to call into question their credibility. See
7 Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003)
8 (holding that, in pre-REAL ID Act cases, an adverse
9 credibility determination must “bear a legitimate nexus” to
10 the applicant’s claim of persecution).
11 Because the agency reasonably concluded that
12 Petitioners were not credible either as to their date of
13 entry or their claim of a fear of future harm, the adverse
14 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all three
16 claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
17 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). We decline
18 to address Petitioners’ unexhausted due process arguments.
19 See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 124
20 (2d Cir. 2007).
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
5
