Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donate Luyombya MUSENGE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1049-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 28, 2010.
    
      Donate Luyombya Musenge, pro se.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Donate Luyombya Musenge, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a February 19, 2009, order of the BIA, affirming on remand the December 20, 2002, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael Rocco, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. In re Musenge, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Dec. 20, 2002). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the BIA’s decision alone. See Belortaja v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 619, 622-23 (2d Cir.2007). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.2007); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

Because we are called upon to review findings that we adjudicated previously, under the law of the case doctrine we follow our earlier holdings, unless “cogent and compelling reasons militate otherwise.” See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1225 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In 2006, we held that while two of the grounds supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination were erroneous, the finding that the date of issuance on the marriage certificate conflicted with Mu-senge’s testimony was: (1) “supported by the record”; (2) “serious”; and (3) “[went] to the heart of [Musenge]’s claim” insofar as it “undermine[d] his claim to ever have been imprisoned.” Musenge v. BCIS, 196 Fed.Appx. 29, 30 (2d Cir.2006) (unpublished). We nevertheless remanded Mu-senge's case to the BIA because we could not “state with confidence that the IJ would adhere to his decision” on the basis of the non-erroneous finding alone. Musenge, 196 Fed.Appx. at 30-31 (quoting Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 161 (2d Cir.2006) (revised in other part and reissued at 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.2006))).

On remand, the BIA clarified that the IJ’s single non-erroneous finding supported an overall adverse credibility determination. Thus, we are now called upon to determine whether substantial evidence supports that determination. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying Musenge’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on its adverse credibility determination, insofar as each of those claims shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005). Because the agency’s adverse credibility finding is dispositive of Musenge’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, we decline to address the agency’s alternative nexus finding.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).