Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 07

- 57 75

- ag D jig ov . H o lder B IA W e i s e l , IJ A73 677 556 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

RUL ING S B Y S UMM

ARYOR DER DONO T H

AVE PR ECE DEN TIAL E FF ECT . CITATI ON TO A S UMM ARYOR DER FIL ED ON OR AFT ER JANUAR Y 1 , 2 007 , I S P ERM ITT ED AND IS G OVE R N E D BYFE DER

AL RUL E O F APP ELL ATE PR OCE DUR E 3 2.1 AND T HIS CO URT ’S LOCAL RUL E 32. 1.1 . WHE N C ITI NG A S UMM ARYOR DER IN A D OCU

MEN T F ILE D W ITH THI S COURT, A PARTY MUS T C ITE EI THE R T HE FED ERAL A PPE NDI X O R A N ELE CTR ONI C DATABA SE (WI TH THE NOTATI ON “SU MMA RY ORD ER” ). A PARTY CIT INGA SUM MAR Y O RDE R MUS T S ERV

E A CO PY OF IT ON ANYPA RTYNO T R

EPR ESE NTE D B Y C OUN SEL . 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 16 day of February, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

_______________________________________ 12 13 ABDOUL AZIZ DJIGO, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 07-5775-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 19 Respondent . 20

_______________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald Salomon, New York, New York. 23 24 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney 25 General, Leslie McKay, Senior 26 Litigation Counsel, Lindsay B. 27 Glauner, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, Civil 29 Division, United States Department of 30 Justice, 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. 5 Petitioner Abdoul Aziz Djigo, a native and citizen of 6 Mauritania, seeks review of a November 29, 2007 order of the 7 BIA affirming the October 24, 2005 decision of Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) Robert Weisel, denying his applications for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 1 0 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abdoul Aziz 11 Djigo , No. A73 677 556 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2007), aff’g No. A73 1 2 677 556 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 24, 2005). We assume the 1 3 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 1 4 procedural history of the case. 1 5 When the BIA summarily affirms the decision of the IJ 1 6 without issuing an opinion, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), we 1 7 review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. 18 See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). 1 9 We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse 2 0 credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence 2 1 standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. 22 Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).Djigo challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility 2 finding in his brief to this Court, but did not do so before the BIA. We nonetheless address the adverse credibility determination because the government does not argue that the issue is unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 461 F.3d 101, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government). 3 1 An IJ’s adverse credibility determination must be “based 2 on specific, cogent reasons bearing a legitimate nexus to 3 the determination.” Belortaja v. Gonzales , 484 F.3d 619, 4 626 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency may properly base an adverse 5 credibility determination on inconsistencies that “to the 6 heart” of the applicant’s claim for relief. See Xu Duan 7 Dong v. Ashcroft , 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting 8 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 182 (2d Cir. 9 2008)). 1 0 Here, the IJ primarily based the adverse credibility 1 1 finding on two inconsistencies: (1) the inconsistency 1 2 between Djigo’s testimony that he was beaten and detained in 1 3 1991 and his concession to testifying at an earlier hearing 1 4 that the incident occurred in 1989, as was also alleged in 1 5 his asylum application; and (2) the inconsistency between 1 6 Djigo’s claim that he was beaten and detained for his 1 7 membership in the African Liberation Forces of Mauritania 1 8 (FLAM), and his admission before the IJ that he was not a 1 9 member of FLAM. The IJ’s findings had a “legitimate nexus” 24 1 to Djigo’s claim for relief. Belortaja , 484 F.3d at 626. 2 The IJ did not err in finding that discrepancies in the 3 record regarding Djigo’s membership in FLAM and the dates of 4 the sole alleged incident of persecution were central to his 5 claim. See Xu Duan Dong , 406 F.3d at 112. Although Djigo 6 explained that the 1989 date was a mistake for which the 7 preparer of the asylum application was responsible, the IJ 8 acted reasonably in rejecting Djigo’s explanations. See 9 Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). 1 0 Because the only evidence of a threat to Djigo’s life or 1 1 freedom depended upon his credibility, his failure to 1 2 exhaust precludes success on his claims for asylum, 1 3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief where all three 1 4 claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul 15 v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 1 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 7 DENIED. 18 19 2 0 FOR THE COURT: 2 1 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24