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.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

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

on the 28th 4 day of March, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 ROBERT D. SACK,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 ABDOUL WAHAB TAHIROU WANE,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-11

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,

27 Assistant Director; Katharine E.

28 Clark, Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, Civil

30 Division, United States Department

31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, a native and

6 citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a December 5, 2011,

7 order of the BIA affirming the May 17, 2010, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa denying

9 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

11 Abdoul Wahab Tahirou Wane, No. A089 771 480 (B.I.A. Dec. 5,

12 2011), aff’g No. A089 771 480 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 17,

13 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang

17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 

18 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 

19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562

20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

21 In challenging the agency’s denial of asylum and

22 withholding of removal, Wane argues that he suffered past

2
1 persecution and will face future persecution on account of

2 his sexuality. However, he does not meaningfully challenge

3 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. That

4 credibility determination forecloses Wane’s claim of past

5 persecution, because the agency found that his testimony

6 regarding his past mistreatment in Mauritania was not

7 credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 154-56 (2d

8 Cir. 2006). And it also forecloses Wane’s claim that he

9 will face future persecution on account of his sexuality,

10 because, as we read the BIA’s decision, the agency concluded

11 that Wane did not credibly demonstrate that he was a gay

12 man.

13 The agency also concluded that Wane did not suffer past

14 persecution or demonstrate a well-founded fear of future

15 persecution on account of his race or ethnicity. Wane does

not identify any errors in that conclusion.1 16

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

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

1 Nor does the brief challenge the agency’s denial of

CAT relief.

3
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

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

3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

6

4