10-1990-ag Sabo v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A099 429 400 

## 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.**  

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

### for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 

### United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 

### New York, on the 4 **th** 

### day of April, two thousand eleven. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 7 

### ROBERT D. SACK, 8 

### RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 

### Circuit Judges **.** 10



### ______________________________________ 11 12 

### Gejza Sabo, 13 

### Petitioner **,** 14 15 

### v. **10-1990-ag** 16 

### NAC 17 

### ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 18 

### UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 

### Respondent **.** 20



### ______________________________________ 21 22 

### FOR PETITIONER: **Elyssa N. Williams, New Haven, CT.** 23 24 

### FOR RESPONDENT: **Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 

### General; Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., 26 

### Assistant Director; Jacob A. 27 

### Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 

### Immigration Litigation, United 29 

### States Department of Justice, 30 

### Washington, D.C. 31

### 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 

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

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

### is DENIED. 4 

### Gejza Sabo, a native and citizen of Slovakia, seeks 5 

### review of an April 22, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming 6 

### the April 4, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 7 

### Douglas Schoppert, which denied Sabo’s application for 8 

### withholding of removal and relief under the Convention 9 

### Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gejza Sabo, No. A099 429 400 10 

### (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2010), aff’g No. A099 429 400 (Immig. Ct. 11 

### N.Y. City Apr. 4, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity 12 

### with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 13



### case. 14 

### Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 15 

### the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16 

### completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 17 

### 2008). The applicable standards of review are well18 

### established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic 19 

### v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey , 20 

### 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum applications 21 

### such as this one, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency 22

### 3 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 1 

### credibility finding on the plausibility of an asylum 2 

### applicant’s account or inconsistencies in his statements 3 

### without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the 4 

### applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 5 

### Contrary to Sabo’s position, substantial evidence 6 

### supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 7 

### The agency reasonably relied on Sabo’s inconsistencies and 8 

### implausibilities in Sabo’s testimony and applications in 9 

### arriving at its decision. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 10 

### F.3d 162, 166-167 (2d Cir. 2008). As the IJ noted, Sabo’s 11 

### original asylum application provided that he was a lifelong 12 

### Jehovah’s Witness and was married to Marta Ivanova, but he 13 

### testified that the application was completely false. That 14 

### original application described several incidents occurring 15 

### in Slovakia in 2003 and 2004, but Sabo later admitted that 16 

### he had been living in the United States since 2000. With 17 

### Sabo having admitted to these falsehoods, it was reasonable 18 

### for the IJ to find him not credible. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 19 

### 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that even a single 20 

### false statement may reasonably “infect the balance of the 21 

### alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence”). The 22

### 4 IJ also reasonably found it implausible that Sabo would 1 

### leave his home country over the two relatively minor 2 

### incidents listed in his second application, as Sabo himself 3 

### testified that the incidents were not serious. See Wensheng 4 

### Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 5 

### this Court will not disturb the inherent implausibility 6 

### finding so long as an IJ’s finding is “tethered to record 7 

### evidence, and there is nothing else in the record from which 8 

### a firm conviction of error could properly be derived”). 9 

### Given these inconsistencies and implausibilities, the 10 

### agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by 11 

### substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 12 

### see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166, 167 (holding that 13 

### “[w]e defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 14 

### unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain 15 

### that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 16 

### credibility ruling”). Because Sabo’s claims all were based 17 

### on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse 18 

### credibility determination was a proper basis for the denial 19 

### of both withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. 20 

### Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 21 

### For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 22

### 5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 1 

### for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 2

3


### FOR THE COURT: 4 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6 7