12-268 Reci v. Holder BIA Elstein, IJ A098 940 002 A098 940 001 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 16 th** **day of October, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SOFIJE RECI, GENTIAN RECI,** 13 Petitioners**,** 14 15 **v. 12-268** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General; Carl H. McIntyre,** 26 **Assistant Director; W. Daniel Shieh,** 27 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 28**Immigration Litigation, United** 1 **States Department of Justice,** 2 **Washington, D.C.** 3 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 Petitioners Sofije Reci (“Reci”) and her son Gentian, 9 natives and citizens of Albania, seek review of a January 10 10, 2012 decision of the BIA affirming the April 5, 2010 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Reci’s 12 application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 In re 13 Sofije & Gentian Reci , Nos. A098 940 002/001 (B.I.A. Jan. 14 10, 2012),aff’gNos. A098 940 002/001 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 15 Apr. 5, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 18 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 19 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);see also Yanqin 21 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For 22 asylum applications such as these, which are governed by the 23

1Reci’s application included Gentian as a derivative applicant, as permitted by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act made by 1 the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency “may rely on any 2 inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility 3 determination as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ 4 establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu 5 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 6 curiam) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Here, the 7 agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by 8 substantial evidence. 9 The agency reasonably found that the petitioners were 10 incredible based on their inconsistent testimony regarding 11 the identity of the individuals who allegedly threatened 12 them in December 2004, which family member filed a police 13 report after another alleged incident in April 2005, the 14 dates they resided in a new apartment after the latter 15 incident, and who authored Reci’s asylum application. Xiu 16 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. The petitioners contend that they 17 provided “sufficient and plausible” explanations for these 18 inconsistencies, but their brief failed to address the first 19 two findings, and their explanation for the latter two 20 findings is insufficient to overturn the agency’s 21 determination. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 22

3(2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that petitioners “must do more 1 than offer a plausible explanation ... to secure relief; 2 [they] must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would 3 be compelled to credit [their] testimony” (internal 4 quotation marks omitted)). 5 The petitioners also contend that the agency erred in 6 requiring corroborative evidence that was not reasonably 7 available. However, the agency was permitted to require 8 petitioners to submit additional evidence from family 9 members to rehabilitate their incredible testimony. See 10 Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per 11 curiam). 12 Because the agency’s adverse credibility determination 13 is supported by substantial evidence, this Court will defer 14 to that ruling. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. As the only 15 evidence of a threat to the petitioners’ lives or freedom 16 depended upon their credibility, the adverse credibility 17 determination in this case is dispositive of their claims 18 for both asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul v. 19 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 20
21
22

4For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 2 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6

5