13-3940-ag 

Chiadi v. Lynch

BIA 

Laforest, IJ 

A096 506 966

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 for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

10th day of March, two thousand sixteen. 

PRESENT: 

 REENA RAGGI, 

 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

 DENNY CHIN, 

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

OLUCHI NNENNA CHIADI, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 13-3940-ag 

 NAC 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Albert Van-Lare, Law Offices of 

Albert Van-Lare, New York, New York. 

 

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), 

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted 

for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Respondent. 
2

FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General; Eric W. Marsteller, Senior 

Litigation Counsel; Remi da 

Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, 

Washington, D.C. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

DENIED. 

 Petitioner Oluchi Nnenna Chiadi, a native and citizen of 

Nigeria, seeks review of a September 16, 2013 decision of the 

BIA affirming an August 20, 2009 decision of an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”) denying Chiadi’s application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”). See In re Oluchi Nnenna Chiadi, No. A096 506 

966 (B.I.A. Sept. 16, 2013), aff’g No. A096 506 966 (Immig. Ct. 

N.Y.C. Aug. 20, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). In 

addition, because Chiadi does not challenge the agency’s denial 

of asylum as untimely, our review is further limited to the 
3

agency’s adverse credibility determination as it pertains to 

her application for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See

Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d 

Cir. 2005) (Sotomayor, J.). Notwithstanding the government’s 

argument to the contrary, we deem Chiadi’s challenge to the 

adverse credibility determination sufficiently exhausted, as 

the BIA addressed and affirmed the IJ’s findings in this regard. 

See Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 515 n.7 (2d Cir. 1993). The 

applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 

513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

For asylum applications like Chiadi’s, governed by the REAL 

ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 

circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies 

in an applicant’s statements and other record evidence “without 

regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s 

claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 

534 F.3d 162, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). 

In this case, the totality of the circumstances supports 

the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia 

Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. We have held that in certain 
4

circumstances “a single false document or a single instance of 

false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect 

the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated 

evidence.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). 

Thus, the IJ reasonably based her adverse determination on a 

finding that Chiadi entered into a marriage for the purpose of 

securing immigration benefits, and failed fully to acknowledge 

that fraud during her hearing. This finding was sufficiently 

supported by Chiadi’s ex-husband’s affidavit; and Chiadi’s own 

statements that she did not know why she married, had neither 

lived with her husband nor consummated the marriage, and had 

given her husband money. 

The IJ also reasonably identified several record 

inconsistencies that undermine Chiadi’s allegation of past 

persecution and her professed fear of future persecution. For 

example, Chiadi testified that she did not apply for asylum when 

she came to the United States in 2003 because she did not yet 

know of her husband’s involvement with a cult; but she 

immediately contradicted herself by testifying that cult 

members had contacted her on two occasions prior to 2003, 

encounters that Chiadi had omitted from her original asylum 
5

application. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 (explaining 

that inconsistency and omission are “functionally 

equivalent”). The omission is significant because the 

contacts were the basis of Chiadi’s claimed fear of the cult. 

See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295 

(2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination was supported by substantial 

evidence, it properly denied both withholding of removal and 

CAT relief, as these claims were based on the same factual 

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

2006). 

Insofar as Chiadi argues that her representative before the 

BIA was ineffective, in part, because he filed a poor brief, 

we decline to consider that claim here because Chiadi failed 

to raise it before the BIA in the first instance. See

Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610, 614 (2d Cir. 1994); accord 

Garcia-Martinez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 511, 513–

14 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 
6

and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

34.1(b). 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court