09 -29 85 -ag

Tja ndra v . Holder BIA Holmes -Sim

mons,IJ A095 143 096 A095 143 095 

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

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RU L I N G S B Y S U MMA R Y O R D E RD O N O T H AV E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I O N T O AS U MMA R Y O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RUL E 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 C ircuit 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 Immigration2 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 1 0 of Indonesia, seek review of a June 24, 2009 order of the 1 1 BIA, affirming the October 3, 2007 decision of Immigration 1 2 Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which denied their 1 3 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 1 4 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ivan 15 Tjandra, Vonny Rosalina , Nos. A095 143 096, A095 143 095 1 6 (B.I.A. June 24, 2009), aff’gNos. A095 143 096, A095 143 1 7 095 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2007). We assume the 1 8 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 1 9 procedural history in this case. 2 0 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 1 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 22 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 3 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 1 0 document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect other 1 1 documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend 1 2 for probative weight upon [the applicant’s] veracity”). 1 3 Although Rosalina claimed that she attempted to correct the 1 4 application but was threatened by a translator associated 1 5 with the Chinese Indonesia American Society (“CIAS”), the 1 1 6 IJ reasonably declined to credit this explanation, noting 1 7 that Rosalina had several opportunities to recant her false 1 8 claims but failed to do so. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 1 9 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the agency need4 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).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 0 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 1 6 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17 18 19