Filed: Apr. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-2893-ag Ashraf v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A079 121 808 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: 10-2893-ag Ashraf v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A079 121 808 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
10-2893-ag
Ashraf v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A079 121 808
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 20th day of April, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROGER J. MINER,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 RAJA ASHRAF, AKA MOHAMMAD ASHRAF,
14 AKA MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-2893-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Jennifer Paisner-Williams,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Yedidya
29 Cohen, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Raja Ashraf, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks
10 review of a June 18, 2010 order of the BIA affirming the May
11 29, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J.
12 Mulligan, which denied his application for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ashraf, No. A079 121 808
15 (B.I.A. June 18, 2010), aff’g No. A079 121 808 (Immigr. Ct.
16 N.Y. City May 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity
17 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
18 case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
21 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
22 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
23 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008);
24 Shu Wen Sun v. BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007) (per
25 curiam).
2
1 The agency’s adverse credibility finding was based on
2 an accumulation of factors, including Ashraf’s demeanor, his
3 return trip to Pakistan, his prior use of a false name
4 during immigration proceedings, and multiple contradictions
5 and inconsistencies in the record. The record supports the
6 inconsistencies noted by the agency, including discrepancies
7 regarding the medical treatment Ashraf underwent after
8 allegedly being detained by the Pakistani government, where
9 he stayed when he returned to Pakistan in 2001, whether the
10 government burned his farm, the circumstances surrounding
11 his sister’s murder, and whether his first wife had passed
12 away. The cumulative effect of these numerous
13 inconsistencies is substantial when measured against the
14 record as a whole. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395,
15 402 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 Ashraf explained the inconsistencies in his testimony
17 by claiming that he suffered memory loss as a result of
18 post-traumatic stress disorder. The agency was not required
19 to credit the explanation, as the medical report submitted
20 by Ashraf indicated that he had trouble concentrating and
21 focusing, but did not mention memory loss. See Majidi v.
22 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that an
3
1 agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
2 inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would
3 compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
4 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was further
5 buttressed by a finding regarding Ahsraf’s demeanor,
6 particularly during Ashraf’s testimony about his sister.
7 Ashraf argues that the IJ erred by relying “on his own
8 speculative analysis of [Ashraf’s] sobbing to find [his]
9 demeanor incredible.” Pet’r’s Br. 6. However, we give
10 “particular deference” to demeanor findings by an IJ, as the
11 IJ is in the best position to observe a witness and evaluate
12 credibility. See Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122, 126–27 (2d
13 Cir. 2007); Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 104,
14 113 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, the agency’s adverse credibility
15 finding is supported by substantial evidence in the form of
16 the numerous inconsistencies in the record, coupled with the
17 IJ’s demeanor finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006);
18 Shi Jie Ge v. Holder,
588 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2009). As
19 the only bases for relief depended upon Ashraf’s
20 credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this
21 case necessarily precludes asylum, withholding of removal,
22 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 155–56
4
1 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426
2 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
5
