Tjandra v. Holder , 391 F. App'x 982 ( 2010 )

09-2985-ag
Tjandra v. Holder
BIA
Holmes-Simmons, IJ
A095 143 096
A095 143 095
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 9 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 IVAN TJANDRA, VONNY ROSALINA,
15
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 09-2985-ag
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22
23 Respondent.
24 _______________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore Vialet, New York, New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General, Civil Division; Michelle G.
30 Latour, Assistant Director; Kimberly
31 A. Burdge, Office of Immigration
1 Litigation, Civil Division, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Ivan Tjandra and Vonny Rosalina, natives and citizens
10 of Indonesia, seek review of a June 24, 2009 order of the
11 BIA, affirming the October 3, 2007 decision of Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) Theresa Holmes-Simmons, which denied their
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ivan
15 Tjandra, Vonny Rosalina, Nos. A095 143 096, A095 143 095
16 (B.I.A. June 24, 2009), aff’g Nos. A095 143 096, A095 143
17 095 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2007). We assume the
18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
21 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
22 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
23 applicable standards of review are well-established.
24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
2 credibility determination. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90,
3 95 (2d Cir. 2008). The IJ reasonably relied on Rosalina’s
4 admission that she had fabricated portions of her prior
5 asylum application, presented false testimony in her
6 hearing, and submitted a fraudulent marriage certificate in
7 support of her application. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d
8 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (relying on the maxim falsus in uno,
9 falsus in omnibus to find that once an IJ concludes that a
10 document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect other
11 documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend
12 for probative weight upon [the applicant’s] veracity”).
13 Although Rosalina claimed that she attempted to correct the
14 application but was threatened by a translator associated
15 with the Chinese Indonesia American Society (“CIAS”), 1 the
16 IJ reasonably declined to credit this explanation, noting
17 that Rosalina had several opportunities to recant her false
18 claims but failed to do so. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
19 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the agency need
1
In February 2005 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the operators
of the CIAS were convicted of preparing fraudulent asylum
applications on behalf of Indonesian applicants.
3
1 not credit an applicant’s explanations for inconsistent
2 testimony unless those explanations would compel a
3 reasonable fact-finder to do so). Because petitioners based
4 their withholding of removal and CAT claim on the same
5 factual predicate as their asylum claim, the IJ’s adverse
6 credibility determination was fatal to all three claims.
7 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
4