Filed: Feb. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-2548 Lajqi v. Lynch BIA Cheng, IJ A093 343 124 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 NOTAT
Summary: 13-2548 Lajqi v. Lynch BIA Cheng, IJ A093 343 124 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 NOTATI..
More
13-2548
Lajqi v. Lynch
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A093 343 124
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 26th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 FLAKRON LAJQI, AKA FLJAKRON LAJAJCI,
14 AKA FLAKORN LAJCI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 13-2548
18 NAC
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory G. Marotta, Vernon, New
25 Jersey.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Francis Fraser, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban,
30 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 Petitioner Flakron Lajqi, a native of Yugoslavia and a
10 citizen of Serbia and Kosovo, seeks review of a May 31,
11 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the February 3, 2012,
12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Flakron
15 Lajqi, No. A093 343 124 (B.I.A. May 31, 2013), aff’g No.
16 A093 343 124 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 3, 2012). We assume
17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
18 procedural history, and the issues presented.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly
21 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
22 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
23 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
24 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
25 2009).
2
1 For asylum applications such as Lajqi’s, which are
2 governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the
3 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
4 an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,”
5 the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
6 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
7 of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
9 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 The agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported
11 by substantial evidence. As the IJ correctly noted, Lajqi’s
12 testimony was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent
13 with his asylum application. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at
14 167 (providing that an IJ may support an adverse credibility
15 determination with “any inconsistency or omission”). For
16 example, Lajqi’s testimony regarding his alleged January
17 2008 beating by members of a rival political faction
18 conflicted with his description of the incident in his
19 asylum application, and was internally inconsistent. The
20 inconsistencies related to when the attack occurred, whether
21 he suffered any physical harm, and what his assailants said
22 to him during the alleged attack. The IJ considered and
3
1 rejected his explanations that he was “confused,”
2 “stressed,” and “emotional.” Even if these explanations are
3 plausible, they did not have to be credited by the agency.
4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
5 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 The IJ also appropriately based her decision in part on
7 Lajqi’s demeanor during the hearing. 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This Court grants “particular
9 deference” in reviewing an agency’s demeanor findings. Shue
10 Wen Sun v. BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 380-81 (2d Cir. 2007)(internal
11 quotation marks omitted); see also Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453
12 F.3d 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 Because the only evidence of a threat to Lajqi’s life
14 or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse
15 credibility determination necessarily precludes success on
16 his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul
17 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
20 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
21
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
4
