Case Name: Alpha B. BAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-05
Citations: 359 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 09-1412-ag
Parties: Alpha B. BAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, B.D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 359
Pages: 225–227

Head Matter:
Alpha B. BAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-1412-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2010.
Matthew J. Harris, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; John B. Holt, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, B.D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Alpha B. Bah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, seeks review of a March 9, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the May 22, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Margaret R. Reichenberg, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Alpha B. Bah, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review the agency's factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.2007). We review de novo questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See, e.g., Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).
Bah does not challenge the agency's pretermission of his asylum application because, as he correctly notes, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's determination as to the timeliness of an asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Thus, we consider only Bah's challenge to the agency's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief. The agency denied those applications based on an adverse credibility determination arising from the fact that, as Bah admitted, he initially presented false testimony, fraudulent evidence, and allowed a witness to give untruthful testimony on his behalf. Although Bah later recanted that false testimony and purported to tell the truth to the IJ, she found herself unable to overlook Bah's initial perjury, finding that it tainted the balance of his claim. Bah argues that because he recanted his initial false claim, the agency erred in declining to credit his new claim. We are not persuaded.
Although applicants should be encouraged to recant false testimony and disavow fraudulent evidence, it does not follow that the agency must credit the testimony and evidence the applicant then presents. Here, the IJ properly applied the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, in declining to believe that Bah's new claim was truthful. See Rui Ying Lin v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir.2006) (discussing the maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything)); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007). The adverse credibility determination was fatal to Bah's withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending mo tion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 84(b).