09 -2 19 7- ag

Kanteh v. Holder BIA De fonzo , IJ A096 135 204 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMIT TED 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 FIL ED WI TH TH IS CO UR T, A PAR TY MU ST CI TE EI TH ERTH E F ED ERAL AP PE ND IXORANEL ECTRONIC 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6 day of April, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 C ircuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 JIBA KANTEH, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 09-2197-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY 19 GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

_______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, New 24 York. 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 26 General, Leslie McKay, Assistant 27 Director, Kristin K. Edison, 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, Civil Division, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, D.C.2 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 4 review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 5 Petitioner Jiba Kanteh, a native and citizen of Sierra 6 Leone, seeks review of an April 27, 2009, order of the BIA, 7 affirming the April 8, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) Paul A. Defonzo, pretermitting his application for 9 asylum and denying his applications for withholding of 1 0 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 1 1 (“CAT”). In re Jiba Kanteh , No. A096 135 204 (B.I.A. Apr. 1 2 27, 2009), aff’g No. A096 135 204 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 1 3 8, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 1 4 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. 1 5 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 1 6 the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 17 Dept’ of Justice , 426 F.3d 520. 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 1 8 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 1 9 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 2 0 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider 2 2 Kanteh’s challenge to the IJ’s pretermission of his asylum 2 3 application as untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). AlthoughWe decline to consider Kanteh’s unexhausted 1 argument that he testified to obtaining the refugee document in 2002 or 2003 when he was already in the United States. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 107 n.1, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). 3 1 we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and 2 questions of law, Kanteh raised no such claim. See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(a)(2)(D); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 4 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). 5 With respect to Kanteh’s challenge to the denial of his 6 application for withholding of removal and CAT relief, 7 substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility 8 determination. We defer to the IJ’s finding that Kanteh’s 9 demeanor indicated that he was not testifying in a credible 1 0 manner. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d 1 1 Cir. 2005). Moreover, as the IJ found, although Kanteh 1 2 claimed to have entered the United States in February 2002, 1 3 he testified that he obtained a “refugee document” while 1 4 living in a refugee camp in 2002 or 2003. Similarly, while 1 1 5 Kanteh testified that his brother died in December 1991, he 1 6 submitted an obituary for his brother that indicated he died 1 7 in December 1997. Although minor and isolated discrepancies 1 8 may be insufficient to support an adverse credibility 1 9 finding, see Diallo v. INS , 232 F.3d 279, 285-86 (2d Cir.4 1 2000), these discrepancies relate to events at the heart of 2 Kanteh’s claim – that he feared the rebels who threatened 3 him and killed his brother. Thus, the IJ reasonably relied 4 on their cumulative effect to call into question Kanteh’s credibility. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d 5 6 Cir. 2006). Having called Kanteh’s credibility into 7 question, the IJ reasonably noted the absence of documentary 8 evidence that may have corroborated his claim. See Biao Yang 9 v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 1 0 Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 1 1 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 1 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because the only evidence of a threat 1 3 to Kanteh’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, 1 4 the adverse credibility determination in this case 1 5 necessarily precludes success on his claim for withholding 1 6 of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 1 7 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Thus, we need not reach the IJ’s 1 8 alternative finding that country conditions in Sierra Leone 1 9 have changed. 2 0 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition5 1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8 9