14-2276

Thakuri v. Lynch

BIA

Vomacka, IJ

A089 255 599

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 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 13th day of July, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Chief Judge,

JON O. NEWMAN,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

NIRMALA SINGH THAKURI,

Petitioner,

v. 14-2276

 NAC

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New

 York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant

Attorney General; Nancy Friedman,

Senior Litigation Counsel;

Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney,

Office of Immigration Litigation,

U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

is DENIED.

 Petitioner Nirmala Singh Thakuri, a native and citizen

of Nepal, seeks review of a May 27, 2014, decision of the

BIA affirming a January 13, 2012, decision of an Immigration

Judge (“IJ”), denying Thakuri’s application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nirmala Singh Thakuri, No.

A089 255 599 (B.I.A. May 27, 2014), aff’g No. A089 255 599

(Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 13, 2012). We assume the parties’

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

in this case.

 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448

F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu

Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 

The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the

circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum

applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and

inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence

“without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the

applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia

Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Thakuri was not credible. 

 The agency reasonably relied on Thakuri’s inconsistent

evidence regarding whether she missed nine days or more than

one month of a taxidermy certification program after she was

purportedly kidnapped by Maoists. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d

at 164-67. Her explanations for this inconsistency were not

compelling, and her testimony concerning the school’s

certificate and letters of completion (received despite her

failure to complete the program) was evasive and

inconsistent. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 &

n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). These inconsistencies reasonably call

into question whether Thakuri was, as she alleged, in hiding

during this time.
 Thakuri also made inconsistent statements regarding

whether her parents remained in fear of Maoists in Nepal or

whether they were living safely in England. And the agency

reasonably found implausible that Thakuri had not learned

her parents’ whereabouts from her sister when they discussed

their parents’ well-being. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d

160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007) (implausibility finding

reasonable if supported “by record facts, or even a single

fact, viewed in the light of common sense and ordinary

experience”).

 The agency’s adverse view of Thakuri’s credibility was

also reasonably supported by the suspicious circumstances

concerning two letters she presented that purported to

support her claim of being kidnapped by Nepal Communist

Party Maoists. One letter (CAR 282) was allegedly signed by

a Deputy General Secretary of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party

Nepal; the other letter (CAR 283) was allegedly signed by

the President of the Himalayan Fauna & Taxidermy museum. 

Both letters misspelled “Maoists”, rendering it in identical

spelling and capitalization as “(MOISTS)”.

 The IJ rhetorically asked, “How could two separate

people, one of them the leader of a political party that is
desperately opposed to the Maoists, the other a

schoolteacher, manage to misspell this word in exactly the

same way?” The IJ then reasonably answered, “The Court

thinks the clear answer for most people would be that, in

fact, these letters were written by the same person, not the

party secretary and not the schoolteacher, but someone else

who prepared these letters as evidence of the respondent's

claim.” CAR 91-92.

 Having questioned Thakuri’s credibility, the agency

reasonably relied further on her failure to provide credible

evidence corroborating her claims. See Biao Yang v.

Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Given the

inconsistency, implausibility, and corroboration findings,

the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported

by substantial evidence, and is dispositive of Thakuri’s

claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444

F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

 FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk