09-0754-ag
Sun v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A099 429 085
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 4 th day of May, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
XIAO HONG SUN,
Petitioner,
v. 09-0754-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Liu Yu, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
Assistant Director; D. Nicholas
Harling, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC
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.
Xiao Hong Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a January 30, 2009, order
of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2007, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace, which denied
Sun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
Xiao Hong Sun, No. A099 429 085 (BIA Jan. 30, 2009), aff’g
No. A099 429 085 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2007). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly
discussed by the BIA. 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); Xiu Xia
Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)(“We defer .
. . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the
totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
2
reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
credibility ruling.”); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d
99, 110-11 (2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
167. The IJ found Sun’s testimony not credible based on:
(1) her testimony that her friend, Feng Mei Liu, was the
same age, even though Liu’s identity card indicated she was
seven years older; (2) her failure to provide reasonably
available corroborating evidence; and (3) her inability to
respond to questions regarding the details of her claim. We
are not compelled to find error in any of these findings, or
in the IJ’s refusal to credit the explanations Sun offered.
See id; Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.
2005). We also accord particular deference to the IJ’s
assessment of Sun’s demeanor, specifically, his observation
that Sun appeared to be testifying from a script because she
could not provide details not included in her asylum
application. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81 n.1. Moreover,
having called her testimony into question, the IJ reasonably
found that Sun failed to provide evidence corroborating her
claim. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d
3
315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, because each of Sun’s claims was based on
the same factual predicate, the IJ reasonably denied Sun’s
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4