Krasniqi v. Holder , 363 F. App'x 118 ( 2010 )

09-0131-ag
Krasniqi v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A098 772 002
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 1 st day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROGER J. MINER,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12
13 _______________________________________
14
15 GJELIL KRASNIQI,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 09-0131-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _______________________________________
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Civil Division; Carl H.
6 McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director;
7 Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney,
8 Office of Immigration Litigation,
9 United States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Gjelil Krasniqi, a native and citizen of Serbia, seeks
17 review of a December 15, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming
18 the September 24, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
19 Noel Ferris, which denied his application for asylum,
20 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
21 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gjelil Krasniqi, No. A098
22 772 002 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2008), aff’g No. A098 772 002
23 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 24, 2007). We assume the
24 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
25 procedural history in this case.
26 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
27 the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
28 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
2
1 The applicable standards of review are well-settled. 8
2 U.S.C.
3 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90,
4 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
5 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
6 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably noted that,
7 although Krasiniqi claimed to understand the interpreter,
8 his testimony was “confused,” and throughout his hearing, he
9 failed to answer questions directly or coherently. We defer
10 to the IJ’s assessment of Krasniqi’s demeanor. See Majidi
11 v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). In
12 addition, the IJ highlighted several discrepancies present
13 in the record, including an inconsistency as to the date on
14 which Krasniqi’s cousin was allegedly murdered and the
15 omission of an alleged persecutory event from Krasniqi’s
16 asylum application. The IJ reasonably found that these
17 material discrepancies undermined Krasniqi’s credibility.
18 See, e.g., Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2005)
19 (per curiam). Moreover, no reasonable fact-finder would
20 have been compelled to accept Krasniqi’s explanations that
21 these discrepancies were a mere oversight or an error on the
22 part of others. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81.
3
1 Ultimately, because the only evidence of a threat to
2 Krasniqi’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility,
3 the adverse credibility determination in this case
4 necessarily precludes success on his claim for asylum,
5 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
6 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Wu Biao
7 Chen v. I.N.S., 344 F.3d 272, 275-76 (2d Cir. 2003) (per
8 curiam).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21
4