13

‐ 3235

Soundo v. Holder

BIA

Nelson, IJ

A200 746 875



### 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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2

Square, in the City of New York, on the 22 nd day of December, two thousand 3

fourteen. 4

5

PRESENT: 6

GUIDO CALABRESI, 7

RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8

SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9

Circuit Judges

. 10

_____________________________________ 11

12

PIBILA THOMAS SOUNDO, 13

Petitioner

, 14

15

v. 13

‐ 3235 16

NAC 17

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 18

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19

Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 21

22

FOR PETITIONER: Andy Wong, New York, NY. 23

24FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; John 1

W. Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kohsei 2

Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 3

Immigration Litigation, United States Department 4

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 5

6

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 8

AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 9

Petitioner Pibila Thomas Soundo, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso, 10

seeks review of a July 31, 2013, order of the BIA affirming the December 20, 2011, 11

decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of 12

removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. In re Piblia Thomas 13

Soundo

, No. A200 746 875 (B.I.A. Jul. 31, 2013), aff’g No. A200 746 875 (Immig. Ct. 14

New York City Dec. 20, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15

underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision, 17

including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun

‐ Zui Guan v. 18

Gonzales

, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 19

well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey

, 534 20

F.3d 162, 165

‐ 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 21

2For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such as Soundo’s, 1

the IJ may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding 2

on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness, and 3

inconsistencies in his statements and other record evidence, without regard to 4

whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 5

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 163

‐ 65. Here, the totality of the 6

circumstances, including Soundo’s inconsistent and evasive testimony and the 7

lack of corroborating evidence, supports the IJ’s credibility determination. 8

Given Soundo’s inconsistent, evasive, and uncorroborated testimony, 9

substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, 10

which provided an adequate basis for denying Soundo asylum, withholding of 11

removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 12

167; see also Paul v. Gonzales

, 444 F.3d 148, 155

‐ 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 13

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have 14

completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in 15

this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this 16

3petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this 1

petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2

34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3

FOR THE COURT: 4

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5

6

7

4