Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent in this case.

07-5426-ag 

Bassel v. Holder

BIA

Defonzo, IJ

A095 838 333

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

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 24 day of November, two thousand nine. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 ______________________________________

12 BLAISE DAME BASSEL, 

13 Petitioner,

14

15 v. 07-5426-ag

16 NAC

17

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,1

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ___________________________________
2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New

2 York.

3

4 F O RRESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant

5 Attorney General, Civil Division;

6 Linda S. Wernery, Assistant

7 Director; Lindsay B. Glauner, Trial

8 Attorney, Office of Immigration

9 Litigation, U.S. Department of

10 Justice, Washington, D.C.

11

12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

14 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for

15 review is DENIED.

16 Petitioner Blaise Dame Bassel, a native and citizen of

17 the Republic of Congo, seeks review of a November 5, 2007

18 order of the BIA affirming the March 8, 2006 decision of

19 Immigration Judge Paul A. DeFonzo, pretermitting his

20 application for asylum and denying his application for

21 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention

22 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Blaise Dame Bassel, No. A095

23 838 333 (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2007), aff’g No. A095 838 333

24 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 2006). We assume the parties’

25 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

26 in this case.

27 We review the agency’s factual findings, including

28 adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial
3

1 evidence standard. 

2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, e.g., Corovic v. Mukasey, 519

3 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). Questions of law and the

4 application of law to undisputed fact are reviewed de novo. 

5 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2008). 

6 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is

7 supported by substantial evidence. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at

8 95. The IJ identified discrepancies between Bassel’s

9 testimony and the information he provided in his application

10 regarding whether his father was politically active; whether

11 his father was murdered by ethnic Mboshis or by COBRAs;

12 whether he and his family were beaten by his father’s

13 killers at the time his father was murdered; and whether,

14 after fleeing the Republic of Congo, Bassel stayed in the

15 Democratic Republic of Congo for two weeks or approximately

16 seven months prior to going to Senegal. Each discrepancy

17 went to the heart of Bassel’s claim because each calls into

18 question the circumstances surrounding Bassel’s claim of

19 past persecution and his fear that it is more likely than

20 not that he would be persecuted if he returns to the

21 Republic of Congo. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d

22 135, 141-42 (2d Cir. 2008).
 Bassel does not challenge the IJ’s pretermission of 2

his asylum application as untimely.

4

1 When asked to explain the discrepancies, Bassel

2 testified that he was confused or that he did not

3 understand. However, because Bassel had the opportunity to

4 review his application and prepared a supplement to his

5 application with his lawyer’s assistance, no reasonable fact

6 finder would be compelled to accept his explanations. See

7 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).

8 Ultimately, we find no error in the IJ’s adverse

9 credibility determination. Thus, the IJ properly denied

10 Bassel’s application for withholding of removal and CAT

11 relief because the only evidence of a threat to Bassel’s

12 life or freedom depended on his credibility. See Paul v. 2

13 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); See Xue Hong

14 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.

15 2005). 

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
5

1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

3 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

4 FOR THE COURT:

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

6

7 By:___________________________