18

- 3125 Gonzalez

- Aucay v. Barr BIA Straus , IJ A 208 538 178 

### 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** 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 2**  **1 s**  **t da**  **y of A**  **p r**  **i l**  **, two thousand twenty**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN**  **,** 7 **C hief**  **Judge ,**  8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  9 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  10 **Circuit Judges**
**.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **HENRY VINICIO GONZALEZ -**  **AUCAY ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 18** 
**- 3125**  17 **NAC** 18 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  20 **Respondent .**  21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Gregory Osakwe , Esq., Hartford, 24 CT

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant Attorney 27 General ; Derek C. Julius , 282 Assistant Director; Zoe J. Heller , 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D C. 5
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Henry Vinicio Gonzalez

- Aucay , a native and 10

citizen of Ecuador , seeks review of a 2018 decision of the 11

BIA affirming a 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 12
denying Gonzalez

- Aucay’s application for asylum, withholding 13
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14

(“CAT”). In re Henry Vinicio Gonzalez

- Aucay , No. A 208 538 15

178 (B.I.A. Sep t . 24, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 208 538 178 (Immig. 16

Ct. Hartford Sep t . 11, 2017 ). We assume the parties’ 17
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history , 18
to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision 19
to deny the petition

. 20

W e have review ed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 21
the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 22

Sec. , Immigration & Customs Enf’t , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 23
2006). The applicable standards of review are well 243 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 1

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) ( reviewing adverse 2
credibility determination under a substantial evidence 3

standard)

. 4

“ Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 6
determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 7

. . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal 8
consistency of each such statement,

. . . and any inaccuracies 9

or falsehoods in such statements

. . . . ” 8 U.S.C. 10

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 11
determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable 12

fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 13
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); 14

accord H ong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence 15
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 16
As the agency reasonably found , Gonzalez

- Aucay’s 17
descriptions of the relevant events were inconsistent in 18
multiple ways

. His application describ ed three different 19
encounters with government officials or police officers, but 20

the statements he made about them at his hearing conflicted 214 with his application’s description . First, as to the dates 1
of the incidents, his testimony was inconsistent with his 2
application reg arding whether approximately one month elapsed 3
between the first and second encounters or only a few days to 4

a week

. H is testimony was internally inconsisten t and also 5
inconsistent with his application regarding the length of 6

time that passed between the second and third incidents

. 7

Second, G onzalez

- Aucay’s application and testimony were 8

inconsistent regarding whether he was beaten during the 9

second incident o r the third

. Third, his application and 10
testimony were inconsistent as to whether he wa s pulled over 11
by individuals traveling in a police car or on foot and 12

whether police officers participated in beating him

. Fourth, 13

his testimony, statements made by him during his credible 14
fear interview, and statements made in his application were 15
inconsistent regarding whether police officers tried to shoot 16

him. Although Gonzalez

- Aucay blamed these inconsistencies on 17

mere memory lapse s caused by the passage of time, the IJ was 18
not required to accept th e explanat ion because it did not 19

resolve the inconsistencies

. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 20
F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than 215 offer a plausible explanation for hi s inconsistent statements 1

to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

2

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 3
quotation marks and citations omitted ) (emphasis in 4
original) ). 5

A ll of the inconsistencies relied on by the I J and 6

discussed above relate to the three alleged incidents of past 7
persecution, and provide substantial evidence for the adverse 8
credibility determination

. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of 9

Homeland Sec. , 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that 10
“a material inconsistency in an aspect of [the applicant]’s 11
story that served as an example of the very persecution from 12
which he sought asylum” can provide substantial evidence for 13
an adverse credibility ruling ( quoting Majidi , 430 F.3d at 14

81)). Because Gonzalez

- Aucay’s persecution claims all rested 15
on the same factual predicate, the IJ’s adverse credibility 16
determination is dispositive of his requests for asylum, 17
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 18

444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). Having arriv ed at this 19
conclusion, we do not consider the agency’s alternative 20
findings

. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As 216 a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make 1
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to 2
the results they reach.”). 3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 5

stays VACATED. 6

FOR THE COURT: 7 Cat herine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 8 Clerk of Court 9