Filed: May 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 15-102 Khan v. Lynch BIA Wright, IJ A097 538 019 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
Summary: 15-102 Khan v. Lynch BIA Wright, IJ A097 538 019 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 NOTATIO..
More
15-102
Khan v. Lynch
BIA
Wright, IJ
A097 538 019
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 3rd day of May, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WAZIR KHAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-102
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse M.
28 Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United 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 is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Wazir Khan, a native and citizen of Guyana,
10 seeks review of a December 12, 2014, decision of the BIA
11 affirming a July 18, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) denying Khan’s application for withholding of removal
13 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
14 re Wazir Khan, No. A097 538 019 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2014), aff’g
15 No. A097 538 019 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 18, 2013). We assume
16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
17 procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
19 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
21 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
22 are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin
23 v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
24 “Considering the totality of the circumstances,” the
2
1 agency “may base a credibility determination on . . . the
2 inherent plausibility of an applicant’s . . . account,” and
3 inconsistencies in the record evidence “without regard to
4 whether” those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the
5 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
6 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
8 Khan was not credible as to his fear of retribution for allegedly
9 witnessing a friend’s murder by secret police in Guyana.
10 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies
11 as to the date of his friend’s murder. See Xiu Xia Lin,
534
12 F.3d at 166-67. And Khan’s testimony that he did not know the
13 names of the other witnesses to the murder was implausible given
14 his testimony that he “normally . . . h[u]ng out” at their house.
15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Siewe v. Gonzales,
16
480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). His later testimony that
17 one of the witnesses was named Cindy was inconsistent with the
18 witnesses’ statements to police that their names were Susan and
19 Roxanne. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Khan did not
20 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies.
21 See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005)
22 Having questioned Khan’s credibility, the agency
3
1 reasonably relied further on his failure to submit
2 corroborating evidence sufficient to rehabilitate his
3 testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
4 Cir. 2007). Although Khan submitted news articles and witness
5 statements that discuss who was present in the house when the
6 murder occurred, none of this evidence mentions Khan’s presence
7 and thus does not corroborate (but in fact weakens) his claim.
8 See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67 & n.3.
9 Ultimately, the agency’s adverse credibility
10 determination is supported by substantial evidence given these
11 inconsistencies and implausible testimony relating to the sole
12 incident that gave rise to Khan’s alleged fear of persecution.
13 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C). That
14 finding is dispositive of withholding of removal and CAT relief
15 because both claims rely on the same factual predicate. See
16 Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 Accordingly, we need not consider the agency’s alternative
18 bases for denying relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24,
19 25 (1976).
20
21
22
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
