12-11 Wane v. Holder BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A089 771 480 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 28 th** **day of March, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **ABDOUL WAHAB TAHIROU WANE,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-11** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, NY.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,** 26 **Assistant Director; Katharine E.** 27 **Clark, Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 29 **Division, United States Department** 30 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 31UPON 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 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, a native and 5 citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a December 5, 2011, 6 order of the BIA affirming the May 17, 2010, decision of 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa denying 8 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane , No. A089 771 480 (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 11 2011), aff’gNo. A089 771 480 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17, 12 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 17 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 18
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 19 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 In challenging the agency’s denial of asylum and 21 withholding of removal, Wane argues that he suffered past 22

2persecution and will face future persecution on account of 1 his sexuality. However, he does not meaningfully challenge 2 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. That 3 credibility determination forecloses Wane’s claim of past 4 persecution, because the agency found that his testimony 5 regarding his past mistreatment in Mauritania was not 6 credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 154-56 (2d 7 Cir. 2006). And it also forecloses Wane’s claim that he 8 will face future persecution on account of his sexuality, 9 because, as we read the BIA’s decision, the agency concluded 10 that Wane did not credibly demonstrate that he was a gay 11

man. 12 The agency also concluded that Wane did not suffer past 13 persecution or demonstrate a well-founded fear of future 14 persecution on account of his race or ethnicity. Wane does 15 not identify any errors in that conclusion. 1 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 21

1Nor does the brief challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 3oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 3
FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5 6

4