17

- 870

Jara

- Llivichuzca v. Sessions

BIA

Straus , IJ

A206 689 908



### 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 M UST 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** 1

**for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall**  2

**United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3

**New York, on the 20**  **th da**  **y of August**  **, two thousand eighteen** 

**.** 4

5

**PRESENT:** 6

**JOSÉ A. CABRANES**

**,** 7

**GERARD E. LYNCH**

**,** 8

**RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.**

**,** 9

**Circuit Judges.**  10

**_____________________________________** 11

12

**OFELIA MARGARITA**  **JARA**

  13

** LLIVICHUZCA**

**,** 14

**Petitioner**

**,** 15

16

**v. 17** 

**- 870**  17

**NAC** 18

**JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III** 

**,** 19

**UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL** 

**,** 20

**Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22

23

**FOR PETITIONER**  **:** Gregory Osakwe

, Hartford

, CT

. 24

25

**FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler

, Acting 26

A ssistant Attorney General; 27

Claire L. Workman

, Senior 28

Litigation Counsel ; Juria L. 29

Jones , Trial Attorney, Office of 302 Immigration Litigation, United 1

States Depar tment of Justice, 2

Washington, D C. 3

4

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Ofelia Margarita Jara

- Llivichuzca

, a native 9

and citizen o f Ecuador

, seeks review of a March 2, 2017

, 10

de cision of the BIA affirming a June 13, 2016

, decision of 11

an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jara

- Llivichuzca ’s 12

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ofelia 14

Margarita Jara

- Llivichuzca

, No. A206 689 908 (B.I.A. Mar

. 15

2

, 201 7 ), aff’g No. A206 689 908 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 16

13

, 2016 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17

underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 19

decision as modified by the BIA

. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 20

Dep’t of Justice

, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005)

. The 21

applicable standards of review are well established. See 22

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey

, 534 F.3d 23

162, 165

- 66 (2d Cir. 2008)

. 243 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 1

that the agency must “[c]onsider[ ] the totality of the 2

circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on the 3

plausibility of an applicant’s account and inconsistencies 4

in her or her statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 5

Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 163

- 64

, 166

- 67

. “We defer

. . . t o 6

an IJ’s c redibility determination unless

. . . it is plain 7

that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse 8

credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 167. For the 9

reasons that follow, we conclude that substantial evidence 10

supports the agen cy’s adverse credibility determination. 11

A s the Government observes, Jara

- Llivichuzca does not 12

specifically challenge the inconsistency, omission, and 13

implausibility findings underlying the adverse credibility 14

determination

. See Norton v. Sam’s Club

, 145 F.3d 114, 117 15

(2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs 16

are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on 17

appeal.”); see also Shunfu Li v. Mukasey

, 529 F.3d 141, 146

- 18

47 (2d Cir. 2008) (applying waiver doctrine to specific 19

find ings underlying credibility determination). Moreover, 20

our review of the record and the agency’s decisions reveals 21

that the findings are supported by the record and provide 224 substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 1

determination

. See 8 U.S.C. § 115 8(b)(1)(B)(iii). 2

Jara

- Llivichuzca’s testimony and application were 3

inconsistent concerning how long she lived with her 4

domestic partner

, who or what motivated his decision to 5

start a relationship with their child

, how soon he became 6

abusive after moving in

, and how many times she left him 7

after he resumed contact with their son. Moreover, Jara

8

Llivichuzca’s application was facially implausible because 9

it alleged that the abuse started on a date after she 10

arrived in the United States. A nd s he submitted a letter 11

from a relative that both omitted the only incident of 12

which the author had firsthand knowledge

— a threatening 13

visit from Jara

- Llivichuzca’s partner

— and was inconsistent 14

about when the abuse started

, when she decided to flee 15

Ecuador, a nd whether she ever spoke to the relative about 16

the abuse. Contrary to Jara

- Llivichuzca’s position, these 17

discrepancies a re extensive and called into question the 18

circumstances of her relationship with her partner

, when 19

and how the abuse commenced, the du ration of the abuse and 20

her responses to it, and her family’s knowledge of the 21

abuse. Because these discrepancies relate to the v ery harm 225 on which her claim is based, the “totality of the 1

circumstances” supports the adverse credibility 2

determination. Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 166 (“Where the 3

IJ’s adverse credibility finding is based on specific 4

examples

. . . of inconsistent statements or contradictory 5

evidence, a reviewing court will generally not be able to 6

conclude that a reasonable adjudicator was compelled to 7

find otherwise.” (quotation marks omitted)); see Xian Tuan 8

Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.

, 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 9

2006) (holding that material inconsistency regarding basis 10

of applicant’s asylum claim is substantial evidence for 11

adverse credibility dete rmination)

. 12

The credibility determination is dispositive of the 13

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claims because 14

all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. 15

See Paul v. Gonzales

, 444 F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 16

We therefor e decline to consider the agency’s alternative 17

determination that Jara

- Llivichuzca failed to provide or 18

explain the absence of corroborating evidence. See INS v. 19

Bagamasbad

, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts 20

and agencies are not required t o make findings on issues the 21

decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”)

. 226 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 2

for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4

Catherine O’ Hagan Wolfe

, Clerk 5