Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0012-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parash Mani OJHA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-2796 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 17, 2013.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; D. Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Parash Mani Ojha, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a June 26, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 4, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel C. Videla, denying Ojha’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Parash Mani Ojha, No. [ AXXXXXXXXX ] (B.I.A. June 26, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXXXXXXXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 4, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues for review.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008).

For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as the application in this case, the agency may, “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of the applicant’s account, and inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

In finding Ojha not credible, the agency reasonably relied on his demeanor, noting that he laughed inappropriately at times and that his testimony was hesitant and evasive at other times. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). Those findings are supported by the hearing transcript.

The agency’s adverse credibility determination is further supported by specific examples of inconsistencies between Ojha’s testimony and his other statements of record. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 458 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here, they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.”). Indeed, the agency reasonably found inconsistent statements regarding his motives for coming to the United States and whether he suffered harm on account of his political activities after 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to credit Ojha’s explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.

Given the demeanor and inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and was dispositive of Ojha’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, we need not review the agency’s alternative determination that Ojha failed to satisfy his burden of proof.

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 DENIED 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).