15-2952 Boodhoo v. Sessions BIA Montante, IJ A041 599 282 

### 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 TO 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**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **13 th**  **day of March, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 8 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ODITNARIAN BOODHOO,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-2952** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Richard W. Chen, New York, N.Y. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy, 25 Assistant Attorney General, Anthony 26 W. Norwood, Senior Litigation 27 Counsel, Manuel A. Palau, Trial 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States 30 Department of Justice, Washington, 31 D.C. 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Oditnarian Boodhoo, a native and citizen of 5 Guyana, seeks review of an August 20, 2015, decision of the BIA 6 affirming an August 21, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) denying Boodhoo’s application for asylum, withholding 8 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Boodhoo, No. A041 599 282 (B.I.A. Aug. 20, 10 2015), aff’g No. A041 599 282 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 21, 2014). 11 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 12 and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 14 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the arguments 15 for denying relief that were rejected by the BIA. See Xue Hong 16 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 Moreover, because the adverse credibility determination is 18 dispositive, we discuss only that basis of the agency’s 19 decision. INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a 20 general rule courts and agencies are not required to make 21 findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the 22 results they reach.”). We conclude that the adverse 233 credibility determination is supported by substantial 1 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 2 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 3 totality of the circumstances,” the agency may “base a 4 credibility determination on” the consistency in the 5 applicant’s statements “without regard to whether an 6 inconsistency . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 8 “A petitioner ‘must do more than offer a plausible explanation 9 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 10 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 11 to credit his testimony.’” Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 12 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS , 386 F.3d 66, 13 76 (2d Cir. 2004)). Furthermore, a petitioner’s “failure to 14 corroborate his . . . testimony may bear on credibility.” See 15 Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 16 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 17 that Boodhoo was not credible. First, to prove that he had 18 filed a police report, Boodhoo submitted an affidavit in which 19 his cousin professed to have tried, but failed, to obtain the 20 report from the Guyanese police. When questioned, however, 21 Boodhoo did not recognize the name of the individual who made 22 the affidavit, thereby calling into question the validity of 234 his evidence and whether he had reported drug activity to the 1 police. The agency reasonably relied on this discrepancy and 2 was not required to accept Boodhoo’s explanation that he might 3 only know his cousin by his nickname or that his lack of literacy 4 caused the misunderstanding. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. It 5

was not unreasonable for the IJ to require Boodhoo to be familiar 6 with his own evidence, particularly from family members. 7 The agency also reasonably relied on Boodhoo’s omission of 8 his stop in Trinidad between Guyana and Canada from his 9 application, particularly given that he admitted to purchasing 10 a passport in Trinidad to facilitate his entry into Canada. 11 The agency may rely on any inconsistency, “without regard to 12 whether” it goes “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 13 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 14 Third, the agency reasonably relied on Boodhoo’s failure 15 to corroborate the threats central to his claim of persecution. 16 Boodhoo alleged that he left Guyana and returned to the United 17 States on the basis of two events: a friend, Reve, telling him 18 that the Phantom Gang had put a hit out on him, and his neighbors 19 telling him that armed men had come to his house looking for 20 him while he was out. Boodhoo did not provide affidavits, 21 letters, or other support from either Reve or his neighbors. 22

See Biao Yang , 496 F.3d at 273. Given the inconsistencies and 235 lack of corroboration, subst antial evidence supports the 1 agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin , 2 534 F.3d at 165-66. 3 Boodhoo also challenges the IJ’s decision declining to 4 transfer venue from Buffalo to New York City. Remand is 5 warranted only if the agency abused its discretion and the 6 denial of transfer prejudiced Boodhoo. See Monter v. Gonzales , 7 430 F.3d 546, 558-59 (2d Cir. 2005). Boodhoo failed to show 8 prejudice. Transferring the case to New York City would not 9 have helped Boodhoo present the evidence that was fatally 10 missing from his application, namely, evidence from Reve and 11 Boodhoo’s neighbors in Guyana, the only people who had firsthand 12 information of threats against Boodhoo. 13 Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s refusal 14 to remand for consideration of new evidence. See Li Yong Cao 15 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005) 16 (reviewing remand rulings for abuse of discretion). On appeal 17 to the BIA, Boodhoo submitted transcripts from his criminal 18 proceeding for grand larceny. The BIA did not abuse it 19 discretion in finding that the transcripts would have no impact 20 on Boodhoo’s case: his criminal conviction was unrelated to the 21 bases for the credibility ruling and did not affect either his 22 claim of past persecution or his fear of future persecution. 236 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 2 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 3 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 4 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 5 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 6 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 7 34.1(b). 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10