15-1048 Gumaneh v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A094 230 713 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **26 th**  **day of July, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MUHAMED GUMANEH,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-1048** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Thomas V. Massucci, New York, N.Y. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; Shelley 26 R. Goad, Assistant Director; Monica 27 Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, D.C. 312 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 is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Muhamed Gumaneh, a native and citizen of the 5 Gambia, seeks review of a March 17, 2015, decision of the BIA, 6 affirming a February 26, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) denying Gumaneh’s application for asylum, withholding 8 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Muhamed Gumaneh, No. A094 230 713 (B.I.A. Mar. 10 17, 2015), aff’g No. A094 230 713 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 11 26, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 14 IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 15 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 16 are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 17 v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 18 For asylum applications like Gumaneh’s, governed by the 19 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 20 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 21 an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” 22 the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 233 statements, “without regard to whether” th ey go “to the heart 1 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 2 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 3 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 4 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 5 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 6 at 167. As discussed below, substantial evidence supports the 7 credibility determination. 8 The agency reasonably relied on the inconsistencies among 9 Gumaneh’s application, testimony, and supporting evidence 10 about the date of his mother’s death. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 11 at 167. Gumaneh testified that his mother died in the late 12 ‘90s; his corrected application provided the same. But his 13 sister’s birth certificate, dated 2001, was signed by his 14 mother. When asked how his mother could have signed the birth 15 certificate, if she had died years earlier, Gumaneh stated that 16 the birth certificate was “wrong” and that he did not review 17 it because it was mailed directly to his lawyer. The agency 18 was not required to credit this explanation. See Majidi v. 19 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 The adverse credibility determination was further 21 supported by the inconsistencies s urrounding how Gumaneh 22 learned of his father’s family’s threats. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 234 F.3d at 163-64. Gumaneh testified that he never had contact 1 with his father’s family, after helping his sister escape female 2 genital mutilation (“FGM”), and that he only learned of the 3 threats through friends. But Gumaneh stated in his application 4 that his father’s family had threatened him directly. When 5 asked how his family could have directly threatened him, if they 6 had not been in contact, Gumaneh explained: “I’m not 7 communicating with them. But, they’ll call me. . . .” 8 Although Gumaneh argues that his explanation was “plausible,” 9 “[a] petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 10 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 11 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 12 to credit his testimony.” Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 13 The adverse credibility determination was also properly 14 based on the inconsistencies in the record concerning when 15 Gumaneh lived in Senegal. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 16 Gumaneh initially testified that he moved to Senegal in 2000 17 and stayed for “two to three years,” but later testified that 18 he was living in Senegal in 2005 when he learned his sister was 19 threatened with FGM. Gumaneh also stated in his application 20 that he was living in Senegal when he first learned his sister 21 had been threatened with FGM. When asked to explain, Gumaneh 22 stated that he returned to Gambia and then went back to Senegal 235 and that he had omitted this information from his initial 1 testimony because his lawyer didn’t ask if he went back or not. 2 The agency was not required to credit that explanation, Majidi , 3 430 F.3d at 80, and did not err in relying on these 4 inconsistencies. 5 The agency also reasonably relied on Gumaneh’s failure to 6 corroborate. Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 7 2007). Gumaneh contends that his testimony was credible and 8 did not need to be rehabilitated. As discussed above, however, 9 the agency had ample grounds for questioning his credibility. 10 While Gumaneh does not explicitly challenge the agency’s 11 justifications for according his corroborating evidence 12 minimal weight, the agency did not err in its treatment of this 13 evidence. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 14 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the weight given corroborating 15 evidence lies largely with discretion of agency); see also Y.C. 16 v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to 17 agency’s decision to accord little weight to a relative’s 18 letter). 19 In light of the foregoing inconsistencies and Gumaneh’s 20 lack of corroboration, the totality of the circumstances 21 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 236 The agency therefore did not err in denying asylum, withholding 1 of removal, and CAT relief because all claims shared the same 2 factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d 3 Cir. 2006). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 7 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 8 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 9 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 10 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 11 34.1(b). 12
FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14