Filed: Jul. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-1483-ag Samassi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A088 377 951 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
Summary: 11-1483-ag Samassi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A088 377 951 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
11-1483-ag
Samassi v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A088 377 951
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 July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MOHAMED SAMASSI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-1483-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo &
24 Fasano, LLP, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jonathan
29 Robbins, 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 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Mohamed Samassi, who claims to be a native
6 and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a March 21,
7 2011, order of the BIA affirming the March 3, 2009, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying
9 Samassi’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Mohamed Samassi, No. A088 377 951 (B.I.A. Mar. 21, 2011),
12 aff’g No. A088 377 951 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 3, 2009).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Here, the agency’s denial of
21 relief was supported by the record.
22 Samassi argues that he was denied due process because
23 the IJ failed to note that his counsel was ineffective.
2
1 However, petitioners must raise to the BIA the specific
2 issues they later raise in this Court. See Foster v. INS,
3 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). While not jurisdictional,
4 this judicially imposed exhaustion requirement is mandatory.
5 Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d
6 Cir. 2007). Because Samassi failed to raise his ineffective
7 assistance of counsel claim before the BIA, he did not
8 exhaust the issue, and we decline to address it in the first
9 instance.
Id.
10 Samassi also argues that the agency erred in basing its
11 credibility determination on a card stating that he joined
12 the Rally of the Republicans (“RDR”) in 2001, which
13 contradicted his testimony that he joined the party in 2002.
14 Samassi argues that the date on the card was a clerical
15 error, but the agency was not compelled to accept this
16 explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
17 Cir. 2005).
18 He also argues that the agency erred in basing its
19 credibility determination on his failure to authenticate
20 documents demonstrating that he was a citizen of the Ivory
21 Coast. We detect no such error. Having found that Samassi
22 was not credible based on inconsistencies and omissions in
3
1 his statements and inconsistencies between his statements
2 and some of his corroborating evidence, the agency properly
3 considered whether Samassi’s corroborating evidence
4 rehabilitated his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496
5 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that an applicant’s
6 corroborating evidence may rehabilitate otherwise
7 questionable testimony). We defer to the BIA’s conclusion
8 that his unauthenticated identity documents were
9 insufficient to rehabilitate that testimony. See Xiao Ji
10 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.
11 2006) (stating that the weight to be afforded to evidence
12 “lies largely in the discretion of the IJ” (quotation and
13 alteration omitted)).
14 Accordingly, Samassi’s challenges to the agency’s
15 credibility determination are meritless. Moreover, the
16 aspects of the agency’s adverse credibility finding that he
17 does not challenge stand as valid bases for the finding.
18 Thus, the adverse credibility determination supports the
19 agency’s denial of Samassi’s applications for asylum,
20 withholding of removal, and CAT relief as they arose from
21 the same factual background--his problems in the Ivory Coast
22 as an ethnic Dioula and supporter of the RDR. See Paul v.
4
1 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v.
2 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 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
5
