10 -37 0-ag

Jalloh v. Holder BIA A bra ms,IJ A078 701 610 

### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2 0 07, 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 2 day of February, two thousand eleven. nd 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges . 11

______________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMED JALLOH, 14 Petitioner , 15 16 v. 10-370-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

______________________________________ 22 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, New York. 23 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Stefanie 28 Notarino Hennes, Trial Attorney, 29 Civil Division, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, U.S. 31 Department of Justice, Washington 32 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, Mohamed Jalloh, a native and citizen of 6 Sierra Leone, seeks review of a January 11, 2010, decision 7 of the BIA affirming the March 24, 2008, decision of 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed 1 1 Jalloh , No. A078 701 610 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2010), aff’gNo. 12 A078 701 610 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March 24, 2008). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 14 and procedural history of the case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 16 BIA’s and IJ’s opinions, including portions of the IJ’s 17 opinion not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui 1 8 Guan v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The 19 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 20 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d 21 Cir. 2008); Dong Gao v. BIA , 482 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 22 2007).3 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 2 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably relied on 3 several inconsistencies in the record that went to the heart 4 of Jalloh’s claim. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS , 331 F.3d 5 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003). With respect to the manner in 6 which he was attacked, Jalloh provided testimony that 7 differed from his statements to a medical doctor and a 8 psychologist. See id . Further, Jalloh was unable to 9 consistently and convincingly testify as to how he obtained 10 a letter intended to corroborate his claim that he had been 11 involved in a local militia, that he had been attacked, and 12 that his father had been killed. See id . 13 In addition, the agency reasonably relied on Jalloh’s 14 submission of a birth certificate, found to be counterfeit, 15 and a passport, obtained through reliance on that birth 16 certificate and found to come from unofficial sources, to 17 support its adverse credibility determination. See Rui Ying 18 Lin v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006); Zaman v. 19 Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 239 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Matter of 2 0 O-D- , 21 I. & N. Dec. 1079 (BIA 1998) (drawing “adverse 21 inferences” from an applicant’s attempt to establish 22 nationality and identity by documents that a forensics4 1 report found to be false, and from his failure to refute or 2 explain the forensics report’s conclusions)). 3 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination 4 was supported by substantial evidence, it did not err in 5 relying on that determination to deny Jalloh’s applications 6 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because 7 those claims all were based on the same factual predicates. 8 See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2006); 9 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 10 (2d Cir. 2005). Given that the adverse credibility 11 determination is dispositive of Jalloh’s application, we do 12 not reach the agency’s alternative holding that the 13 government had rebutted any fear of future persecution with 14 evidence of a fundamental change of circumstances in Sierra 15 Leone. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 21 225 1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7