Perera v. Holder ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          11-995-ag
    Perera v. Holder
    BIA
    Weisel, I.J.
    A095 864 132
    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 28th day of February, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
    8                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    9                DENNY CHIN,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11       ______________________________________
    12
    13       CHANDRIKA JAYALALANE PERERA,
    14                Petitioner,
    15                                                              11-995-ag
    16                          v.                                  NAC
    17
    18       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20                Respondent.
    21       ______________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONER:               Chandrika Jayalalane Perera, pro se,
    24                                     Staten Island, New York.
    25
    26       FOR RESPONDENT:               Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    27                                     General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
    28                                     Director, Jane T. Schaffner, Trial
    29                                     Attorney, Office of Immigration
    30                                     Litigation, 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 Chandrika Jayalalane Perera, a native and
    6   citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a February 25, 2011,
    7   decision of the BIA affirming the November 20, 2008,
    8   decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel,
    9   finding that Perera was incredible and denying her
    10   applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
    11   under the Convention Against Torture.   In re Chandrika
    12   Jayalalane Perera, No. A095 864 132 (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2011),
    13   aff’g, No. A095 864 132 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20,
    14   2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
    15   underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
    16       Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    17   both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions “for the sake of
    18   completeness.”   Zaman v. Mukasey, 
    514 F.3d 233
    , 237 (2d Cir.
    19   2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).   The applicable
    20   standards of review are well-established. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 21
       1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d
    22   Cir. 2009).
    2
    1       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding,
    2   following this Court’s remand in 2007, that Perera knew or
    3   should have known that the doctor’s letter she submitted in
    4   support of her application was inauthentic.    See Perera v.
    5   Gonzales, 
    244 F. App'x 392
    , 394 (2d Cir. 2007) (Summary
    6   Order).   At the 2008 hearing, Perera testified that she
    7   learned the document was inauthentic in February 2003, one
    8   month before the merits hearing in March 2003.     As she has
    9   conceded that she knew that the letter was inauthentic
    10   before the merits hearing, and yet continued to rely on the
    11   letter as evidence of her claim, the adverse credibility
    12   determination is well-supported.   See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480
    
    13 F.3d 160
    , 170-71 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that adverse
    14   credibility determination may be based on submission of
    15   false documents the alien knows, or has reason to know, are
    16   false).
    17       Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding
    18   that Perera should have known that the letter was
    19   inauthentic when she received it, because she testified that
    20   her father told her that he mailed the letter in November
    21   2001 and the letter was dated December 2001.     Although
    22   Perera has contended that she did not look at the date of
    3
    1   the letter, this explanation does not compel the conclusion
    2   that the credibility finding must be reversed.     See Ahmed v.
    3   Ashcroft, 
    286 F.3d 611
    , 612 (2d Cir. 2002) (“To reverse
    4   under the substantial evidence standard, we must find that
    5   the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels
    6   it”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis
    7   omitted).
    8       Moreover, although the submission of false evidence
    9   that is “wholly ancillary to the alien’s claim may, in some
    10   circumstances, be insufficient by itself to warrant a
    11   conclusion that the entirety of the alien's uncorroborated
    12   material evidence is also false,” Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170,
    13   the doctor’s evidence was central to Perera's claim for
    14   relief, as it purported to corroborate her testimony that
    15   she was raped by government officials.     Thus, the adverse
    16   credibility determination was supported by substantial
    17   evidence, and the agency did not err in denying asylum,
    18   withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as those claims were
    19   all based on the same factual predicate.     See Paul v.
    20   Gonzales, 
    444 F.3d 148
    , 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
    21
    22
    4
    1        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    2    DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    3    removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    4    is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    5    this petition is DISMISSED as moot.    Any pending request for
    6    oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    7    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    8    Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    9                                 FOR THE COURT:
    10                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-995-ag

Judges: Cabranes, Livingston, Chin

Filed Date: 2/28/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024