Abazovski v. Holder , 455 F. App'x 116 ( 2012 )

10-5197-ag
Abazovski v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A077 454 929
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 24th day of January, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 RAMAZAN ABAZOVSKI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-5197-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
27 Assistant Director; Anthony P.
28 Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 Civil Division, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 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 Ramazan Abazovski, a native and citizen of
6 Macedonia, seeks review of a December 3, 2010, order of the
7 BIA affirming the April 20, 2009, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ramazan
11 Abazovski, No. A077 454 929 (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2010), aff’g No.
12 A077 454 929 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Apr. 20, 2009). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Abazovski does not challenge
21 the agency’s finding that he failed to establish a well-
22 founded fear of future persecution or a likelihood of
2
1 torture, apart from his allegations of past persecution.
2 Accordingly, we address only his challenges to the agency’s
3 credibility determination, the determination on which the
4 agency based its conclusion that Abazovski had not
5 demonstrated past persecution.
6 The agency reasonably found that Abazovski did not
7 establish past persecution because his testimony was not
8 credible. Because this case is not governed by the REAL ID
9 Act, we review the agency’s credibility determination to see
10 if it was based on “specific, cogent” reasons bearing a
11 “legitimate nexus” to the finding. See Secaida-Rosales v.
12 INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation
13 marks omitted). As the agency noted, Abazovski’s testimony
14 that he never spent more than eight hours in police custody
15 contradicted his written statement that he was incarcerated
16 for up to ten days. The agency reasonably rejected
17 Abazovski’s explanation that the last page of the written
18 statement was included with his application in error. See
19 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
20 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
21 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
22 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
3
1 to credit his testimony.” (emphasis in original; internal
2 quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, the agency
3 reasonably found that Abazovski’s testimony that he was a
4 political activist in the Party for Democratic Prosperity
5 (“PDP”) was undermined by his testimony admitting that he
6 did not know who led the party when he left Macedonia in
7 1998. See Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 200 (2d Cir.
8 2006) (per curiam) (concluding that asylum applicant’s error
9 in referring to Nigeria’s Social Democratic Party as the
10 Christian Democratic Party supported an adverse credibility
11 determination against him).
12 Having questioned Abazovski’s credibility in light of
13 the above findings, the agency reasonably relied on his
14 failure to provide any evidence from the PDP to corroborate
15 his membership. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268,
16 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding that “the absence
17 of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
18 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
19 question”).
20 In sum, the agency’s adverse credibility determination
21 was supported by substantial evidence. That determination
22 supports the agency’s conclusion that Abazovski did not
4
1 establish that he suffered past persecution. Accordingly,
2 Abazovski is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded
3 fear of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2011),
4 and thus we need not address Abazovski’s argument that the
5 government failed to rebut the presumption of a well-founded
6 fear of future persecution.
7 Because Abazovski did not establish that he suffered
8 past persecution, so as to establish his eligibility for
9 asylum, his application for withholding of removal and CAT
10 relief, which is based on the same factual predicate, fails
11 as well. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155–56 (2d
12 Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
5