Ould Ahmedou v. Lynch

14-1375
Ould Ahmedou v. Lynch
BIA
Wright, IJ
A200 922 262
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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
22nd day of July, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
MOHAMED ABDARRAHIM OULD AHMEDOU,
Petitioner,
v. 14-1375
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
Assistant Director; Brendan P. Hogan,
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Mohamed Abdarrahim Ould Ahmedou, a native and citizen of
Mauritania, seeks review of an April 3, 2014, decision of the
BIA affirming the August 23, 2012, decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Abdarrahim Ould
Ahmedou, No. A200 922 262 (B.I.A. Apr. 3, 2014), aff’g No. A200
922 262 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 23, 2012). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history in this case.
We have reviewed both the decisions of the IJ and the BIA
“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
Cir. 2009).
For asylum applications like Ahmedou’s, governed by the
REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality
of the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on
inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
record evidence, “without regard to whether” the
inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167
(2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination.
The adverse credibility determination was based
principally on Ahmedou’s failure to mention his alleged arrests
in his asylum application and during his asylum interview. See
id. at 166 n.3. In his application, Ahmedou stated that he
feared he would be jailed and tortured if he returned to
Mauritania, but did not state that he had been arrested or
tortured in the past. During his asylum interview, Ahmedou
3
stated that he had never been arrested in Mauritania. It was
not until a subsequent affidavit and his testimony before the
IJ that Ahmedou claimed that he had been arrested and beaten
three times in Mauritania. The IJ properly found that these
were material omissions because the alleged arrests and torture
went to the basis of Ahmedou’s claim. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295-96 (2d Cir. 2006) (per
curiam).
Ahmedou contended that his translator omitted the arrests
from the asylum application and during Ahmedou’s asylum
interview. However, the asylum interview record reflects that
Ahmedou responded in detail to dozens of questions without any
apparent difficulties with the translation, and he confirmed
in his asylum interview that his asylum application had been
read back to him in his own language. The agency was therefore
not required to accept this explanation. See Majidi v.
Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
Contrary to Ahmedou’s argument, the IJ did not err in
considering the asylum interview record. The record does not
reflect translation errors and the Government was not required
to provide Ahmedou with a translator in this context. See 8
4
C.F.R. § 208.9(g) (requiring applicant to provide translator
for asylum interviews). Moreover, the asylum interview record
was reliable because it provided a detailed summary of the
questions Ahmedou was asked and his responses to those
questions. See Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 632-33 (2d
Cir. 2006) (holding that an asylum interview record was reliable
when it summarized the applicant’s responses).
Accordingly, the agency properly relied on omissions from
Ahmedou’s asylum application and interview to find him not
credible. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse
credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief as the claims are based
on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5