09 -2 78 8- ag

Mansurovv . Holder BIA Weis el,IJ A097 520 186 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

R u li n gs by sum m ary o rder do no tha ve precedenti alef f ect . C it ati on t o a s u m m ary ord er f il ed on or af

t er Ja n u ary 1 , 2 0 0 7 , is p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b yF e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen c it i ng a s um m ar y or deri n a docum ent f i l ed w it h t hi s c ourt ,a par ty m us tc it e e it hert he Fede r al A p p en d i x or an el ectron i c d a tab a se (w ith th e n o tati o n “su m m a ry or d er” ).A pa rty citi n g a su m m a ry or d er m u st se r v e a c o p yo f it o n a n yp a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b yc o u n se l. 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. 252 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 1 0 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 1 is DENIED. 1 2 Ilkhanbek Khakimovich Mansurov, a native and citizen of 1 3 Uzbekistan, seeks review of a June 4, 2009, order of the BIA 1 4 affirming the July 11, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge 1 5 (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which pretermitted his application 1 6 for asylum and denied his application for withholding of 1 7 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 1 8 (“CAT”). In re Ilkhanbek Khakimovich Mansurov , No. A097 520 1 9 186 (B.I.A. June 4, 2009), aff’gNo. A097 520 186 (Immig. 2 0 Ct. N.Y. City July 11, 2007). We assume the parties’ 2 1 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 2 2 in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we 2 3 review the 2 4 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 25 Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 2 6 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 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 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. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167 1 0 . In finding Mansurov not credible, the IJ relied on 1 1 several 1 2 inconsistencies between his testimony and his written 1 3 application, specifically: (1) his statement in his 1 4 affidavits that he worshiped at a mosque five time a day 1 5 contradicted his testimony that he worshiped there once a 1 6 week; (2) Mansurov gave substantially inconsistent dates 1 7 regarding when he was arrested, detained for three days, and 1 8 beaten to the point of hospitalization by Uzbek police; and 1 9 (3) his statement in his affidavits that in September 2002, 2 0 he was detained for two days and tortured contradicted his 2 1 testimony that he was detained for only three or four hours and was not beaten. 2 2 Each of these inconsistencies was a4 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. 2005) . Finally, contrary 6 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 Cir. 2006). 10 Ultimately, because no reasonable fact-finder would be 11 1 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary, the agency’s adverse 1 3 credibility determination was supported by substantial 1 4 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 1 5 534 F.3d at 165-66. Thus, the agency properly denied 1 6 Mansurov’s application for withholding of removal and CAT 1 7 relief because both claims were based on the same factual 1 8 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 1 9 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 21 2 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of5 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