Filed: Nov. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-4812-ag Gafurova v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A098 415 313 A098 415 296 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
Summary: 10-4812-ag Gafurova v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A098 415 313 A098 415 296 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 DATABAS..
More
10-4812-ag
Gafurova v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A098 415 313
A098 415 296
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 29th day of November, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 GULNARA GAFUROVA, IRINA KULICHENKOVA,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 10-4812-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation
26 Counsel; Yamileth G. HandUber, Trial
27 Attorney, Office of Immigration
28 Litigation, Civil Division, United
29 States Department of Justice,
30 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
5 Petitioners Gulnara Gafurova and Irina Kulichenkova,
6 natives of the former Soviet Union and citizens of
7 Uzbekistan, seek review of an October 26, 2010 order of the
8 BIA affirming the September 17, 2008 decision of Immigration
9 Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom denying their applications for
10 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gulnara Gafurova,
12 Nos. A098 415 313/296 (B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2010), aff’g Nos.
13 A098 415 313/296 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 17, 2008). We
14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
15 and procedural history in this case.
16 Subsequent to the filing of the petition for review,
17 the BIA granted Kulichenkova’s motion to reopen and remanded
18 her case to an immigration judge for further proceedings and
19 entry of a new decision. See In re Irina Kulichenkova, No.
20 A098 415 296 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2011). Accordingly, there is
21 no longer a final order of removal against her over which we
22 may exercise jurisdiction, and we dismiss the petition for
2
1 review as it pertains to her. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),
2 (b)(9); see also Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887
3 (9th Cir. 2002). A new petition for review timely filed
4 following entry of any future final order of removal against
5 Kulichenkova will suffice to challenge both the final order
6 and the BIA’s October 2010 order to the extent it remains
7 relevant to her.
8 However, we have jurisdiction to consider Gafurova’s
9 petition for review because there is a final order of
10 removal against her. Under the circumstances of this case,
11 we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA.
12 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520,
13 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
14 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui
15 Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 157-68 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 Here, Gafurova’s admission that she filed a false
17 asylum application provides “specific, cogent” grounds for
18 the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
19 See Balachova v. Mukasey,
547 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 The agency reasonably rejected her argument that her
21 admission that she had lied established that her other
22 testimony was truthful. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d
3
1 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Kaur v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d
2 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005).
3 We defer to the agency’s conclusion that Gafurova’s
4 false application was not forced by her prior attorney, and
5 we find no error in its conclusion that she did not
6 establish a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
7 because she failed to comply with the procedural
8 requirements for raising such a claim set forth in Matter of
9 Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). See Jian Yun
10 Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
409 F.3d 43, 46 (2d Cir.
11 2005).
12 Moreover, the agency reasonably rejected those aspects
13 of Gafurova’s story that were corroborated by letters from
14 her family because the only evidence to demonstrate the
15 reliability of those letters was her testimony. As this
16 Court has noted, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in
17 omnibus may be used to “discredit evidence that does not
18 benefit from corroboration or authentication independent of
19 the petitioner’s own credibility.” See Siewe v. Gonzales,
20
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). In
21 sum, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was
22 supported by substantial evidence.
4
1 Because Gafurova has not presented any challenges to
2 the agency’s conclusion that she did not establish that she
3 faced future harm on account of her ethnicity separate from
4 her assertions about the past persecution she and her
5 daughter suffered in Uzbekistan, the agency’s adverse
6 credibility determination forecloses her claims for relief.
7 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. As we have completed
10 our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously
11 granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
12 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
13 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
14 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
15 Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
5
