Opinion
No. 08-1113-ag NAC.
November 3, 2008.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
FOR PETITIONER: Ronald S. Salomon, New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, HON. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Mika Diallo, allegedly a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a February 7, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the April 19, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Steven R. Abrams, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Mika Diallo, No. A78 643 030 (B.I.A. Feb. 7, 2008), aff'g No. A78 643 030 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 19, 2006). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and supplements the IJ's decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 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 Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
The IJ's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. The IJ observed several discrepancies within Diallo's testimony, the lack of detail in that testimony, and the absence of corroborative evidence. In particular, Diallo testified inconsistently with regard to when certain events, such as his alleged detention by the Mauritanian military, the death of his mother, and his marriage ceremony, occurred. The cumulative effect of these inconsistencies led the IJ to properly conclude that Diallo's testimony was not credible. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasizing that "even where an IJ relies on discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, . . . the cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact-finder."); Liang Chen v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 454 F.3d 103, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[A]n IJ need not consider the centrality vel non of each individual discrepancy or omission" and can instead "rely upon the cumulative impact of such inconsistencies, and may conduct an overall evaluation of testimony in light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it hangs together with other evidence."). Moreover, the IJ found that Diallo's testimony was vague, and that, despite his attempt to probe for more details, Diallo continued to respond in generalities. See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003). Taken with the inconsistencies mentioned above, this finding formed an ample basis for the denial of relief. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95; Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402.
Because the only evidence of a threat to Diallo's life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief where all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. 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); cf. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that the agency may not deny a CAT claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context, where the CAT claim did not turn upon credibility).
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 motion 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 34(b).