12-3646 Sangpo v. Holder BIA Sichel, IJ A093 043 238 

### 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 13 th** **day of January, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **DAWA SANGPO, AKA SOM NURBU** 13 **SHERPA,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 12-3646** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED** 20 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent**.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Dawa Sangpo, pro se, Central Islip,** 25 **New York.** 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Jennifer L. Lightbody,** 28 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie** 29**A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney,** 1 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 2 **United States Department of Justice,** 3 **Washington D.C.** 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 Dawa Sangpo, an alleged native and citizen of the Tibet 9 Autonomous Region of China, seeks review of an August 14, 10 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 6, 2011, 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his 12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 14 Dawa Sangpo , No. A093 043 238 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2012),aff’g 15 No. A093 043 238 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 2011). We 16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17 and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the decisions of the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of 20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 21 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 22 review are well established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 24

2For asylum applications like Sangpo’s, governed by the 1 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the 2 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility 3 determination on inconsistencies in asylum applicant’s 4 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 5 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 6 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 7 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 8 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 9 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 10 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 11 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 12 credibility determination. 13 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the 14 record regarding whether Sangpo was married at the time 15 police searched his home, when he and his parents went to 16 Nepal to arrange his travel to the United States, and why he 17 failed to obtain evidence from a friend with first-hand 18 knowledge of his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)

. The 19 agency was not compelled to credit his explanations for 20 these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 21 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) . Having questioned Sangpo’s 22 credibility, the agency reasonably determined that his 23 3failure to corroborate his claim further undermined his 1 credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 2 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 3 Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, 4 the agency reasonably found Sangpo not credible. That 5 finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, 6 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 7 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 17
FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 21

4