09-2815-ag

Jolon-Pineda v. Holder

BIA

DeFonzo, IJ

A072 442 019

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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

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

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

PRESENT:

REENA RAGGI,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges. 

_______________________________________

CARLOS ENRIQUE JOLON-PINEDA,

Petitioner, 

 v. 09-2815-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES 

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Respondents.

______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, New York.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,

Civil Division; John S. Hogan, Senior

Litigation Counsel; Channah M. Farber,

Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, Civil Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

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, Carlos Enrique Jolon-Pineda, a native and

citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a June 5, 2009, order

of the BIA affirming the July 19, 2007, decision of

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo denying

petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

re Carlos Enrique Jolon-Pineda, No. A 072 442 019 (B.I.A.

June 5, 2009), aff’g No. A 072 442 019 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

July 19, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

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

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

applicable standards of review are well-established. See

Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008);

Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination. In evaluating Jolon-Pineda’s

credibility, the IJ found that: (1) he testified

inconsistently regarding when he entered the police academy;

(2) his testimony regarding his confrontation with guerillas

was contradicted by his asylum application in several

respects; (3) his testimony regarding the identity of the

individuals searching for him in Guatemala was contradicted

by his asylum application; and (4) he failed to rehabilitate

his testimony with corroborative evidence. Jolon-Pineda

does not challenge these findings with specificity, and

although he argues that he adequately explained his

inconsistent testimony, no reasonable factfinder would have

been compelled to credit his explanations. See Majidi v.

Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, to

the extent Jolon-Pineda argues that he is entitled to relief

because he presented corroborative evidence, as the IJ

properly noted, not one of the nine affidavits he submitted

makes any reference to the incidents comprising the basis of

his asylum application. See Xiao Ji Chen v. United States

Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting
3

that an IJ does not err in citing inadequate corroboration

as a basis for denying relief when a petitioner is otherwise

not credible).

 

Because Jolon-Pineda’s claims for withholding of

removal and CAT relief share the same factual predicate as

his asylum claim, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination

is fatal to those claims as well. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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