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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 14 th** **day of May, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **SONAM WANGDUE, AKA SONAM WANGDU** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-3762** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Jason A. Nielson, Of Counsel,** 23 **Mungoven & Associates, P.C., New** 24 **York, New York.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Frances W. Fraser, Senior** 28 **Litigation Counsel; Justin R.** 29**Markel, Trial Attorney, Office of** 1 **Immigration Litigation, U.S.** 2 **Department of Justice, Washington** 3 **D.C.** 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Sonam Wangdue, an alleged native and citizen 10 of the Tibetan region of China, seeks review of an August 11 31, 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the December 22, 12 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan Vomacka, 13 denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 14 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonam 15 Wangdue, No. A087 468 106 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2012), aff’gNo. 16 A087 468 106 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 22, 2010). We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 22 2008) (citation omitted). The applicable standards of 23 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 24

25

2see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d 1 Cir. 2008). 2 The agency may, considering the totality of the 3 circumstances, base a credibility finding on inconsistencies 4 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record 5 evidence without regard to whether they go “to the heart of 6 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 7 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Here, substantial evidence 8 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 9 The agency reasonably relied on discrepancies between 10 Wangdue’s testimony and an identity document issued by the 11 Indian government that he used to obtain a visa and enter 12 the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 13 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The agency was not compelled 14 to credit Wangdue’s explanation that the document was 15 fraudulent and obtained from a broker to assist in his U.S. 16 visa application because, aside from the location of his 17 birth, the document contained correct identifying 18 information (name, date of birth, address, father’s name). 19 See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). On 20 the other hand, crediting Wangdue’s explanation that the 21 document was false, the submission of that fraudulent 22

3document to obtain immigration benefits alone was sufficient 1 to find him not credible, as the document was not prepared 2 or used to escape persecution. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 3 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). 4 The agency identified several other record 5 inconsistencies regarding the dates of Wangdue’s employment 6 in India and whether he lost his Tibetan Freedom Movement 7 Book or merely submitted it for renewal. See 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 9 Wangdue did not provide compelling explanations for the 10 inconsistencies. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 11 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination 12 is supported by substantial evidence, the agency did not err 13 in denying Wangdue asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 14 relief because those claims were based on the same factual 15 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 16 Cir. 2006). 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 22

4oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7 8

5