Terera v. Garland

20-2780
Terera v. Garland
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A209 760 199
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 Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 12th day of January, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 YUNUSA TERERA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-2780
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York,
25 NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General, Civil Division;
1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior
2 Litigation Counsel, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation; Katherine
4 S. Fischer, Trial Attorney, U.S.
5 Department of Justice, Civil
6 Division, Office of Immigration
7 Litigation, Washington, DC.
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Petitioner Yunusa Terera, a native and citizen of The
13 Gambia, seeks review of an August 6, 2020 decision of the BIA
14 affirming a May 23, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge
15 (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding
16 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). See In re Yunusa Terera, No. A 209 760 199 (B.I.A.
18 Aug. 6, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 760 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
19 May 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history.
21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by
22 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d
23 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“administrative
25 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
2
1 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”);
2 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018)
3 (reviewing adverse credibility determination for substantial
4 evidence).
5 An IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
6 circumstances” base a credibility determination on
7 inconsistencies in an applicant’s statements or between his
8 statements and other evidence, “without regard to whether an
9 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
10 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We
11 defer [] to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from
12 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
13 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
14 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
15 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. In the instant
16 matter, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
17 determination.
18 Terera testified that his family and village elders tried
19 to force him to marry and then assaulted and threatened him
20 when he refused. The agency reasonably relied on
21 inconsistencies between his testimony and letters from his
3
1 brother and stepfather. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
2 Terera’s brother and stepfather stated that the family was
3 compelling Terera to marry his uncle’s 10-year-old daughter,
4 but Terera testified that he was being forced to marry someone
5 older than him. The agency was not required to accept his
6 explanation that there were two different individuals because
7 he mentioned that otherwise uncorroborated fact only when
8 confronted with the discrepancy. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
9 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than
10 offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements
11 to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
12 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal
13 quotation marks omitted)). In addition, the record reflects
14 inconsistencies regarding how serious his family was about
15 the marriage, whether his father died in 2010 or was alive
16 and arranged for the marriage in 2014, and when Terera left
17 The Gambia.
18 These inconsistencies constitute substantial evidence
19 for the adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (“[E]ven
21 where an IJ relies on discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken
4
1 separately, concern matters collateral or ancillary to the
2 claim, the cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed
3 consequential by the fact-finder.”); Likai Gao v. Barr, 968
4 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single
5 inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ
6 was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies
7 would so preclude even more forcefully.” (citation omitted)).
8 Contrary to Terera’s position, the adverse credibility
9 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and CAT relief because all three forms of relief are
11 based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
12 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 Finally, we find no merit to Terera’s remaining argument.
14 He did not ask to present expert testimony at his hearing,
15 and expert testimony would not have resolved the
16 inconsistencies in his claim. See Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey,
17 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Parties claiming denial of
18 due process in immigration cases must, in order to prevail,
19 allege some cognizable prejudice fairly attributable to the
20 challenged process.” (quotation marks omitted)).
21
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
3 stays VACATED.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6 Clerk of Court
6