14-1375 

Ould Ahmedou v. Lynch 

BIA 

Wright, IJ 

A200 922 262

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 

22nd day of July, two thousand fifteen. 

PRESENT: 

 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 

Chief Judge,

SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

 

MOHAMED ABDARRAHIM OULD AHMEDOU, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 14-1375 

 NAC 

 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, N.Y. 

 

FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 
2 

 Assistant Director; Brendan P. Hogan, 

Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 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. 

 Mohamed Abdarrahim Ould Ahmedou, a native and citizen of 

Mauritania, seeks review of an April 3, 2014, decision of the 

BIA affirming the August 23, 2012, decision of an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Abdarrahim Ould 

Ahmedou, No. A200 922 262 (B.I.A. Apr. 3, 2014), aff’g No. A200 

922 262 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 23, 2012). We assume the 

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

history in this case. 

We have reviewed both the decisions of the IJ and the BIA 

“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. 
3 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 

Cir. 2009). 

 For asylum applications like Ahmedou’s, governed by the 

REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality 

of the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on 

inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other 

record evidence, “without regard to whether” the 

inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 

credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 

circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 

make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 

(2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

The adverse credibility determination was based 

principally on Ahmedou’s failure to mention his alleged arrests 

in his asylum application and during his asylum interview. See

id. at 166 n.3. In his application, Ahmedou stated that he 

feared he would be jailed and tortured if he returned to 

Mauritania, but did not state that he had been arrested or 

tortured in the past. During his asylum interview, Ahmedou 
4 

stated that he had never been arrested in Mauritania. It was 

not until a subsequent affidavit and his testimony before the 

IJ that Ahmedou claimed that he had been arrested and beaten 

three times in Mauritania. The IJ properly found that these 

were material omissions because the alleged arrests and torture 

went to the basis of Ahmedou’s claim. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t 

of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d Cir. 2006) (per 

curiam). 

 Ahmedou contended that his translator omitted the arrests 

from the asylum application and during Ahmedou’s asylum 

interview. However, the asylum interview record reflects that 

Ahmedou responded in detail to dozens of questions without any 

apparent difficulties with the translation, and he confirmed 

in his asylum interview that his asylum application had been 

read back to him in his own language. The agency was therefore 

not required to accept this explanation. See Majidi v. 

Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). 

Contrary to Ahmedou’s argument, the IJ did not err in 

considering the asylum interview record. The record does not 

reflect translation errors and the Government was not required 

to provide Ahmedou with a translator in this context. See 8 
5 

C.F.R. § 208.9(g) (requiring applicant to provide translator 

for asylum interviews). Moreover, the asylum interview record 

was reliable because it provided a detailed summary of the 

questions Ahmedou was asked and his responses to those 

questions. See Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 632-33 (2d 

Cir. 2006) (holding that an asylum interview record was reliable 

when it summarized the applicant’s responses). 

Accordingly, the agency properly relied on omissions from 

Ahmedou’s asylum application and interview to find him not 

credible. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse 

credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief as the claims are based 

on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk