11-2052-ag Alam-Begum v. Holder BIA Martinez-Esquivel, IJ A098 350 042 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Richard C. Lee United** 2 **States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, in the City of New** 3 **Haven, Connecticut, on the 9 th** **day of July, two thousand** 4 **twelve.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 8 Chief Judge, 9 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 10 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 11 Circuit Judges**.** 12

**_______________________________________** 13 14 **ABU NASER ALAM-BEGUM, AKA ABU NASER** 15 Petitioner**,** 16 17 **v. 11-2052-ag** 18 **NAC** 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**______________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New** 25 **York.** 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 28 **General; Blair T. O’Connor,** 29 **Assistant Director; Ari Nazarov,** 30 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 31 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 32 **Division, United States Department** 33 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 342 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 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Abu Naser Alam-Begum, a native and citizen 5 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 28, 2011, order of 6 the BIA affirming the May 7, 2009, decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) Lourdes Martinez-Esquivel denying his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abu 10 Naser Alam-Begum, No. A098 350 042 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2011), 11 aff’gNo. A098 350 042 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2009). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, including the 16 portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by 17 the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d 18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well19 established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21

221We also need not consider Alam-Begum’s CAT claim, which he raises before this Court in a purely conclusory fashion. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 3 The agency denied Alam-Begum’s application based on an 1 adverse credibility finding, including a determination that 2 Alam-begum failed to establish his identity. Because this 3 finding was supported by substantial evidence, we need not 4 consider the agency’s alternative finding that Alam-Begum 5 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear (or a clear 6 probability) of future persecution. 1 7 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, 8 the agency may, considering the totality of the 9 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s 10 demeanor, the plausibility of his account and 11 inconsistencies in his statements. See8 U.S.C. § 12 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 13 165 (2d Cir. 2008). We generally afford “particular 14 deference” to an IJ’s credibility finding. See Jin Chen v. 15 United States Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 16 2005). Alam-Begum argues that the inconsistencies in his 17 asylum applications cited by the IJ are minor, and 18 insufficient to support an adverse credibility 19 determination. However, the IJ did not give them great 204 weight, instead relying largely on implausible aspects of 1 Alam-Begum’s account of how he obtained his passport. See 2 generally Dhoumo v. BIA, 416 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 2005) 3 (per curiam) (“The determination of an alien’s nationality 4 or lack thereof is a threshold inquiry in determining the 5 alien’s eligibility for asylum.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) 6 (placing burden of proof on the applicant). Alam-Begum 7 claimed that he obtained a passport from the Bangladeshi 8 consulate in New York without filing any paperwork or 9 presenting written proof of his identity, but based solely 10 on the statement of a friend. Moreover, the passport that 11 Alam-Begum obtained was open-ended, even though he claimed 12 to have criminal charges pending against him in Bangladesh. 13 The IJ also relied upon Alam-Begum’s failure to provide 14 details as to these criminal. Cf. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 15 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A] finding of testimonial 16 vagueness cannot, without more, support an adverse 17 credibility determination unless government counsel or the 18 IJ first attempts to solicit more detail from the alien.”). 19 Despite claiming that he fled Bangladesh-- and was afraid to 20 return-- because of the charges, Alam-Begum did not know 21 definitively whether they were still pending, and was unable 225 to provide information about the other individuals arrested 1 or the outcome of their cases. The IJ also noted her 2 observations of Alam-Begum’s demeanor. These factors 3 provide substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse 4 credibility finding. 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 7 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 8 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 9 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 10 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 11
FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13 14 15