Filed: Jan. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 12-3646 Sangpo v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A093 043 238 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 NO
Summary: 12-3646 Sangpo v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A093 043 238 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 NOT..
More
12-3646
Sangpo v. Holder
BIA
Sichel, IJ
A093 043 238
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 13th day of January, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DAWA SANGPO, AKA SOM NURBU
14 SHERPA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12-3646
18 NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Dawa Sangpo, pro se, Central Islip,
26 New York.
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Jennifer L. Lightbody,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie
1 A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of Justice,
4 Washington D.C.
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 Dawa Sangpo, an alleged native and citizen of the Tibet
10 Autonomous Region of China, seeks review of an August 14,
11 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 6, 2011,
12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 Dawa Sangpo, No. A093 043 238 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2012), aff’g
16 No. A093 043 238 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 2011). We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 the decisions of the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of
21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448
22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
23 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
24 Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 For asylum applications like Sangpo’s, governed by the
2 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
3 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility
4 determination on inconsistencies in asylum applicant’s
5 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
6 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8
7 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
8 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
10 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin
11 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
13 credibility determination.
14 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the
15 record regarding whether Sangpo was married at the time
16 police searched his home, when he and his parents went to
17 Nepal to arrange his travel to the United States, and why he
18 failed to obtain evidence from a friend with first-hand
19 knowledge of his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The
20 agency was not compelled to credit his explanations for
21 these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77,
22 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Having questioned Sangpo’s
23 credibility, the agency reasonably determined that his
3
1 failure to corroborate his claim further undermined his
2 credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273
3 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
4 Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration,
5 the agency reasonably found Sangpo not credible. That
6 finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal,
7 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57
8 (2d Cir. 2006).
9
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
12 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
13 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
14 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
15 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
16 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
17 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
4
