12-2008
Xing v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A088 652 036
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 11th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JUAN LIN XING, AKA JUAN LIN ZING,
14 AKA XING JUAN LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12-2008
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Holly M.
28 Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United 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 Petitioner Juan Lin Xing, a native and citizen of
10 China, seeks review of an April 19, 2012, order of the BIA,
11 affirming an October 7, 2010, decision of an Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding
13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Juan Lin Xing, No. A088 652 036 (B.I.A. Apr.
15 19, 2012), aff’g No. A088 652 036 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct.
16 7, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 the IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly
20 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
21 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
22 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin
23 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For
24 applications like this one, governed by the REAL ID Act of
25 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the
2
1 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
2 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and
3 inconsistencies in her statements, without regard to whether
4 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260,
6 265 (B.I.A. 2007). Analyzed under these standards, the
7 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
8 substantial evidence.
9 The IJ reasonably relied on the inconsistency between
10 Xing’s testimony that she joined an underground church in
11 China in 2007 and letters from her mother and her fellow
12 church member, indicating that she joined the church in late
13 2008. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v.
14 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). Xing’s
15 explanations for this discrepancy, including that her friend
16 had made a typographical error, were not so compelling as to
17 require reversal of the IJ’s findings. See Majidi v.
18 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that an
19 agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
20 inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations
21 would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
22
3
1 Furthermore, Xing does not challenge the agency’s
2 finding that she failed to provide reasonably available
3 corroboration of her claim, including evidence from her
4 brother or her husband, both of whom allegedly attended her
5 Christian church in New York. The absence of such evidence
6 rendered Xing “unable to rehabilitate testimony that has
7 already been called into question,” Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
8 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007), and constituted an
9 independent basis for denying her application. See 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 198
11 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009). Because the above reasons provide
12 substantial evidence as needed to uphold the agency’s
13 adverse credibility determination, we do not reach the
14 agency’s other bases for its credibility finding. See INS
15 v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
16 We also decline to reach whether the agency erred in
17 its finding that Xing established no pattern or practice of
18 persecution against Christians in China. The agency’s
19 adverse credibility finding subverted Xing’s claim that she
20 currently practiced Christianity as well as her claim to
21 membership in the class of Christians in China, which is a
22 prerequisite for her pattern or practice claim. See 8
4
1 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(B). In light of the agency’s
2 properly supported adverse credibility and corroboration
3 findings, it did not err in denying Xing’s applications for
4 relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
5 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,
6 523 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
9 for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5