09-2788-ag

Mansurov v. Holder

BIA

Weisel, IJ

A097 520 186

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 13 day of April, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 ILKHANBEK KHAKIMOVICH MANSUROV,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 09-2788-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, New York, New

24 York.

25
2

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

2 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant

3 Director; Andrew Oliveira, Trial

4 Attorney, Office of Immigration

5 Litigation, United States Department

6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

11 is DENIED.

12 Ilkhanbek Khakimovich Mansurov, a native and citizen of

13 Uzbekistan, seeks review of a June 4, 2009, order of the BIA

14 affirming the July 11, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge

15 (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which pretermitted his application

16 for asylum and denied his application for withholding of

17 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture

18 (“CAT”). In re Ilkhanbek Khakimovich Mansurov, No. A097 520

19 186 (B.I.A. June 4, 2009), aff’g No. A097 520 186 (Immig.

20 Ct. N.Y. City July 11, 2007). We assume the parties’

21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

22 in this case.

23 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

24 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.

25 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable

26 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. 
3

1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d

2 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).

3 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,

4 the agency may, considering the totality of the

5 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum

6 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the

7 plausibility of his or her account, and inconsistencies in

8 his or her statements, without regard to whether they go “to

9 the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. In

11 finding Mansurov not credible, the IJ relied on several

12 inconsistencies between his testimony and his written

13 application, specifically: (1) his statement in his

14 affidavits that he worshiped at a mosque five time a day

15 contradicted his testimony that he worshiped there once a

16 week; (2) Mansurov gave substantially inconsistent dates

17 regarding when he was arrested, detained for three days, and

18 beaten to the point of hospitalization by Uzbek police; and

19 (3) his statement in his affidavits that in September 2002,

20 he was detained for two days and tortured contradicted his

21 testimony that he was detained for only three or four hours

22 and was not beaten. Each of these inconsistencies was a
4

1 valid basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at

3 167. Moreover, to the extent Mansurov offered explanations,

4 no reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to credit

5 them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.

6 2005). Finally, contrary to Mansurov’s argument, the record

7 does not compel the conclusion that the agency failed to

8 consider any of the evidence Mansurov submitted. See Xiao Ji

9 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d

10 Cir. 2006). 

11 Ultimately, because no reasonable fact-finder would be

12 compelled to conclude to the contrary, the agency’s adverse

13 credibility determination was supported by substantial

14 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,

15 534 F.3d at 165-66. Thus, the agency properly denied

16 Mansurov’s application for withholding of removal and CAT

17 relief because both claims were based on the same factual

18 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.

19 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 426 F.3d

20 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 

21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5

1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

6 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

7 FOR THE COURT: 

8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

9

10