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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Richard C. Lee United

3 States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, in the City of New

Haven, Connecticut, on the 9th 4 day of July, two thousand

5 twelve.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 DENNIS JACOBS,

9 Chief Judge,

10 JON O. NEWMAN,

11 ROBERT D. SACK,

12 Circuit Judges. 

13 _______________________________________

14

15 ABU NASER ALAM-BEGUM, AKA ABU NASER

16 Petitioner, 17

18 v. 11-2052-ag

19 NAC 

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22 Respondent.

23 ______________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, New

26 York.

27

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

29 General; Blair T. O’Connor,

30 Assistant Director; Ari Nazarov,

31 Trial Attorney, Office of

32 Immigration Litigation, Civil

33 Division, United States Department

34 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Abu Naser Alam-Begum, a native and citizen

6 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 28, 2011, order of

7 the BIA affirming the May 7, 2009, decision of Immigration

8 Judge (“IJ”) Lourdes Martinez-Esquivel denying his

9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abu

11 Naser Alam-Begum, No. A098 350 042 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2011),

12 aff’g No. A098 350 042 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2009). 

13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

14 and procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, including the

17 portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by

18 the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d

19 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.

21 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

22
1We 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

1 The agency denied Alam-Begum’s application based on an

2 adverse credibility finding, including a determination that

3 Alam-begum failed to establish his identity. Because this

4 finding was supported by substantial evidence, we need not

5 consider the agency’s alternative finding that Alam-Begum

6 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear (or a clear

probability) of future persecution.1 7

8 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,

9 the agency may, considering the totality of the

10 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an applicant’s

11 demeanor, the plausibility of his account and

12 inconsistencies in his statements. See 8 U.S.C. §

13 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,

14 165 (2d Cir. 2008). We generally afford “particular

15 deference” to an IJ’s credibility finding. See Jin Chen v.

16 United States Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.

17 2005). Alam-Begum argues that the inconsistencies in his

18 asylum applications cited by the IJ are minor, and

19 insufficient to support an adverse credibility

20 determination. However, the IJ did not give them great
4

1 weight, instead relying largely on implausible aspects of

2 Alam-Begum’s account of how he obtained his passport. See

3 generally Dhoumo v. BIA, 416 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir. 2005)

4 (per curiam) (“The determination of an alien’s nationality

5 or lack thereof is a threshold inquiry in determining the

6 alien’s eligibility for asylum.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)

7 (placing burden of proof on the applicant). Alam-Begum

8 claimed that he obtained a passport from the Bangladeshi

9 consulate in New York without filing any paperwork or

10 presenting written proof of his identity, but based solely

11 on the statement of a friend. Moreover, the passport that

12 Alam-Begum obtained was open-ended, even though he claimed

13 to have criminal charges pending against him in Bangladesh.

14 The IJ also relied upon Alam-Begum’s failure to provide

15 details as to these criminal. Cf. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529

16 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A] finding of testimonial

17 vagueness cannot, without more, support an adverse

18 credibility determination unless government counsel or the

19 IJ first attempts to solicit more detail from the alien.”). 

20 Despite claiming that he fled Bangladesh-- and was afraid to

21 return-- because of the charges, Alam-Begum did not know

22 definitively whether they were still pending, and was unable
5

1 to provide information about the other individuals arrested

2 or the outcome of their cases. The IJ also noted her

3 observations of Alam-Begum’s demeanor. These factors

4 provide substantial evidence supporting the agency’s adverse

5 credibility finding. 

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion

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

9 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is

10 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate

11 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

12 FOR THE COURT:

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

14

15