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. 

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

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

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 13th 4 day of January, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 DAWA SANGPO, AKA SOM NURBU

14 SHERPA,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 12-3646

18 NAC

19

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED

21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

22 Respondent.

23 _____________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONER: Dawa Sangpo, pro se, Central Islip,

26 New York.

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

28 General; Jennifer L. Lightbody,

29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie
1 A. Svoren-Jay, Trial Attorney,

2 Office of Immigration Litigation,

3 United 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 petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Dawa Sangpo, an alleged native and citizen of the Tibet

10 Autonomous Region of China, seeks review of an August 14,

11 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 6, 2011,

12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his

13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

14 pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

15 Dawa Sangpo, No. A093 043 238 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2012), aff’g

16 No. A093 043 238 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6, 2011). We

17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

18 and procedural history in this case. 

19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

20 the decisions of the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of

21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448

22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of

23 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);

24 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

2
1 For asylum applications like Sangpo’s, governed by the

2 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the

3 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility

4 determination on inconsistencies in asylum applicant’s

5 statements and other record evidence “without regard to

6 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8

7 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s

8 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the

9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder

10 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

11 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

13 credibility determination. 

14 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies in the

15 record regarding whether Sangpo was married at the time

16 police searched his home, when he and his parents went to

17 Nepal to arrange his travel to the United States, and why he

18 failed to obtain evidence from a friend with first-hand

19 knowledge of his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The

20 agency was not compelled to credit his explanations for

21 these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,

22 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Having questioned Sangpo’s

23 credibility, the agency reasonably determined that his

3
1 failure to corroborate his claim further undermined his

2 credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273

3 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 

4 Given the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration,

5 the agency reasonably found Sangpo not credible. That

6 finding is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal,

7 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57

8 (2d Cir. 2006). 

9

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

12 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

13 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

14 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

15 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

16 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

17 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

20

21

4