09-2985-ag

Tjandra v. Holder

BIA

Holmes-Simmons, IJ

A095 143 096

A095 143 095

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 9 day of September, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROGER J. MINER,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

10

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _______________________________________

13

14 IVAN TJANDRA, VONNY ROSALINA,

15

16 Petitioners, 

17

18 v. 09-2985-ag

19

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22

23 Respondent.

24 _______________________________________

25

26 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, New York.

27

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

29 General, Civil Division; Michelle G.

30 Latour, Assistant Director; Kimberly

31 A. Burdge, Office of Immigration
2

1 Litigation, Civil Division, United

2 States Department of Justice,

3 Washington, 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 Ivan Tjandra and Vonny Rosalina, natives and citizens

10 of Indonesia, seek review of a June 24, 2009 order of the

11 BIA, affirming the October 3, 2007 decision of Immigration

12 Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which denied their

13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ivan

15 Tjandra, Vonny Rosalina, Nos. A095 143 096, A095 143 095

16 (B.I.A. June 24, 2009), aff’g Nos. A095 143 096, A095 143

17 095 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2007). We assume the

18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

19 procedural history in this case.

20 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

21 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

22 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

23 applicable standards of review are well-established. 

24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 
 In February 2005 in the United States District 1

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the operators

of the CIAS were convicted of preparing fraudulent asylum

applications on behalf of Indonesian applicants.

3

1 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

2 credibility determination. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90,

3 95 (2d Cir. 2008). The IJ reasonably relied on Rosalina’s

4 admission that she had fabricated portions of her prior

5 asylum application, presented false testimony in her

6 hearing, and submitted a fraudulent marriage certificate in

7 support of her application. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d

8 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the maxim falsus in uno,

9 falsus in omnibus to find that once an IJ concludes that a

10 document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect other

11 documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend

12 for probative weight upon [the applicant’s] veracity”). 

13 Although Rosalina claimed that she attempted to correct the

14 application but was threatened by a translator associated

15 with the Chinese Indonesia American Society (“CIAS”), the 1

16 IJ reasonably declined to credit this explanation, noting

17 that Rosalina had several opportunities to recant her false

18 claims but failed to do so. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430

19 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the agency need
4

1 not credit an applicant’s explanations for inconsistent

2 testimony unless those explanations would compel a

3 reasonable fact-finder to do so). Because petitioners based

4 their withholding of removal and CAT claim on the same

5 factual predicate as their asylum claim, the IJ’s adverse

6 credibility determination was fatal to all three claims. 

7 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

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

13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

16 FOR THE COURT: 

17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

18

19