11-3237
Sun v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A089 091 842
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.
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 21st day of October, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
REENA RAGGI,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
WU SUN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-3237
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
Brown, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Emily Anne Radford,
Assistant Director, Jesse Lloyd
Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, 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.
Wu Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, seeks review of a July 21, 2011, order of the BIA,
affirming the February 8, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wu Sun, No. A089
091 842 (B.I.A. July 21, 2011), aff’g No. A089 091 842 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2010). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales,
432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
In evaluating Sun’s credibility regarding his testimony
that he suffered past harm and feared future harm in China on
account of his Christian faith and opposition to China’s
family planning policy, the IJ found that: (1) Sun’s testimony
2
was inconsistent with his credible fear interview with respect
to his girlfriend’s name, whether he had been threatened or
harmed on account of his religion, and whether he had ever
been arrested in China; (2) Sun’s testimony was inconsistent
with his asylum application with respect to the manner in
which he escaped from a hospital room allegedly guarded by
four security officers; and (3) Sun’s testimonial account of
his alleged hospital escape was implausible. Sun does not
challenge these findings, which stand as valid bases for the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v.
Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).
The agency also did not err in finding that the evidence
Sun submitted was insufficient to rehabilitate his otherwise
incredible testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Specifically, the agency was not
required to credit letters from Sun’s girlfriend, mother, and
friend in China. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that the
weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency);
Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I&N Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010)
(giving diminished evidentiary weight to “letters from
3
relatives and friends,” who were “interested
witnesses . . . not subject to cross examination”), rev’d on
other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d
Cir. 2012). Sun’s argument that these witnesses were not, in
fact, biased in his favor does not compel the conclusion that
the IJ erroneously disregarded this evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
The agency also reasonably afforded little probative
weight to the letter from Sun’s pastor confirming that Sun
regularly attends church in the United States, because it did
not bolster Sun’s testimony that he had been persecuted in
China on account of his religion. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d
at 342. Finally, the agency’s determination that Sun’s
remaining evidence–which included an abortion certificate,
birth certificates, household registry card, resident
identification cards, and a Chinese church certificate—was of
little probative value is entitled to deference, given that
the evidence was unauthenticated and Sun’s credibility already
was questionable. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d at 149
(affording IJs “considerable flexibility in determining the
authenticity of” proffered documentary evidence and in
evaluating such documents when “making an overall assessment
4
of the credibility of a petitioner’s testimony and,
ultimately, of her persecution claim”); Qin Wen Zheng v.
Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in discrediting a purported
village notice where the document was not authenticated and
the alien had been found not credible by the IJ); see also
Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 342.
Ultimately, in light of the fact that Sun does not
challenge the agency’s inconsistency and implausibility
findings, and given the agency’s discretion as to the weight
attributed to the corroborating evidence, the agency’s adverse
credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66
(2d Cir. 2008). The adverse credibility determination is
dispositive of Sun’s claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief, as those claims are predicated on the
same facts. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5