* The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 10-5265-ag Hussain v. Holder **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

**SUMMARY ORDER R** **ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT .**  **C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L** **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT**  **, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE**  **F EDERAL**  **A PPENDIX 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 16 thday of May, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 Circuit Judges, 8 J. GARVAN MURTHA, * 9 District Judge. 10 11 IJAZ HUSSAIN, AKA MUHAMMAD ARIF, 12 13 Petitioner , 14 15 v. 10-5265-ag 16 17 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL 18 19 Respondent. 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: AMY NUSSBAUM GELL, Gell & Gell, New York, 26 NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: WALTER BOCCHINI, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, Civil 30 Division, Department of Justice (Tony 312 West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda 1 S. Wernery, Assistant Director, James E. 2 Grimes, on the brief ), for Eric H. 3 Holder, Jr., United States Attorney 4 General, Washington, D.C. 5 6 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 7

**AND DECREED**that the petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision is **DENIED**

. 9 Petitioner Ijaz Hussain, a native and citizen of 10 Pakistan, seeks review of the December 1, 2010 order of the 11 BIA, affirming the June 4, 2009, decision of Immigration 12 Judge ("IJ") Thomas J. Mulligan denying Hussain’s 13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ijaz 15 Hussain , No. A088 527 640 (B.I.A. Dec. 1, 2010), aff'g No. 16 A088 527 640 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 4, 2009). We assume 17 the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19 “When the BIA agrees with the IJ's conclusion that an 20 asylum applicant is not credible and emphasizes particular 21 aspects of the IJ's decisions, we review both the BIA's and 22 the IJ's opinions.” Ming Xia Chen v. BIA , 435 F.3d 141, 144 23 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency's adverse credibility 24 determination under the substantial evidence standard, 25 treating it as "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 263 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen Sun v. BIA , 510 F.3d 377, 2 379 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 3 We conclude that the evidence supporting the agency’s 4 adverse credibility determination was substantial. The 5 evidence includes Hussain’s poor demeanor, lack of candor, 6 unresponsiveness, as well as the implausibility and 7 inconsistencies in his testimony. See 8 U.S.C. § 8 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For instance, the IJ noted that Hussain 9 had a “poor” demeanor because his "facial expressions" were 10 "contrived," he testified as if he was "presenting a script 11 as opposed to [discussing] real life events," and “[t]here 12 was a significant lack of a natural flow to some of his 13 testimony." The IJ also found that Hussain’s testimony 14 lacked candor and was unresponsive because "there was a 15 significant lack of any meaningful details,” he was evasive, 16 and it was "’like pulling teeth’ to get him to answer even 17 simple questions." In this vein, when Hussain was asked 18 questions about his visa application in Pakistan, the IJ 19 noted that he had to be asked the same question "three or 20 four times," was "clearly extremely evasive," and ultimately 21 admitted that he lied to the consular officer. 22 234 Hussain’s testimony was also inconsistent and 1 implausible at times. The IJ observed that Hussain’s lawyer 2 in Pakistan did not mention any threats against him in his 3 letter despite Hussain’s contentions that his lawyer was 4 threatened. When asked about the omission, Hussain 5 responded that his attorney did not mention being threatened 6 because if he had, "nobody [would] hire [him] as his lawyer 7 because in a way they'll say . . . he's gone scared now." 8 It was reasonable for the IJ to conclude that this response 9 was "not credible at all." 10 Moreover, the IJ reasonably concluded that Hussain’s 11 justification for failing to produce his real passport was 12 not credible. Hussain claimed that it would be illegal 13 under Pakistani law to mail his passport to the United 14 States. The IJ concluded that based on this answer and the 15 fact that the passport Hussain produced with his asylum 16 application was fraudulent, he had "absolutely no 17 confidence” that Hussain is who he claims to be. 18 Because Hussain’s claims for asylum, withholding of 19 removal and CAT relief were based on the same factual 20 predicate, the BIA did not err in denying both claims based 21 on the IJ's underlying adverse credibility determination. 22 See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 235 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

**DENIED** . As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 2 that the Court previously granted in this petition is 3

**VACATED** , and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 4 this petition is **DISMISSED** as moot. 5
6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8 9 10