12-3762

Wangdue v. Holder

BIA

Vomacka, IJ

A087 468 106

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.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 14th 4 day of May, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 SONAM WANGDUE, AKA SONAM WANGDU

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-3762

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________ 22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Jason A. Nielson, Of Counsel,

24 Mungoven & Associates, P.C., New

25 York, New York.

26

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

28 General; Frances W. Fraser, Senior

29 Litigation Counsel; Justin R.
1 Markel, Trial Attorney, Office of

2 Immigration Litigation, U.S.

3 Department of Justice, Washington

4 D.C.

5

6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9 is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Sonam Wangdue, an alleged native and citizen

11 of the Tibetan region of China, seeks review of an August

12 31, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the December 22,

13 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan Vomacka,

14 denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

15 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonam

16 Wangdue, No. A087 468 106 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2012), aff’g No.

17 A087 468 106 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 22, 2010). We

18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

19 and procedural history in this case.

20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.

23 2008) (citation omitted). The applicable standards of

24 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);

25

2
1 see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d

2 Cir. 2008). 

3 The agency may, considering the totality of the

4 circumstances, base a credibility finding on inconsistencies

5 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record

6 evidence without regard to whether they go “to the heart of

7 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu

8 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, substantial evidence

9 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

10 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between

11 Wangdue’s testimony and an identity document issued by the

12 Indian government that he used to obtain a visa and enter

13 the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu

14 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The agency was not compelled

15 to credit Wangdue’s explanation that the document was

16 fraudulent and obtained from a broker to assist in his U.S.

17 visa application because, aside from the location of his

18 birth, the document contained correct identifying

19 information (name, date of birth, address, father’s name). 

20 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). On

21 the other hand, crediting Wangdue’s explanation that the

22 document was false, the submission of that fraudulent

3
1 document to obtain immigration benefits alone was sufficient

2 to find him not credible, as the document was not prepared

3 or used to escape persecution. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480

4 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). 

5 The agency identified several other record

6 inconsistencies regarding the dates of Wangdue’s employment

7 in India and whether he lost his Tibetan Freedom Movement

8 Book or merely submitted it for renewal. See 8 U.S.C.

9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

10 Wangdue did not provide compelling explanations for the

11 inconsistencies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.

12 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination

13 is supported by substantial evidence, the agency did not err

14 in denying Wangdue asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

15 relief because those claims were based on the same factual

16 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d

17 Cir. 2006). 

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

22 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

4
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

6

7

8

5