08-3160-ag
Qiu v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A078 015 937
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 5 th day of May, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
YU FEI QIU,
Petitioner,
v. 08-3160-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent. 1
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Michelle Gordon
Latour, Assistant Director, Timothy
G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
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.
Yu Fei Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a May 27, 2008, order of
the BIA affirming the September 27, 2006, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied Qiu’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yu Fei
Qiu, No. A078 015 937 (B.I.A. May 27, 2008), aff’g No. A078
015 937 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 27, 2006). 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 as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
The applicable standards of review are well established.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't
of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal
We find no error in the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The IJ reasonably determined that the
2
inconsistency between Qiu’s gynecological examination book
(“exam book”), which stated that she was married, and her
asylum application, which stated that she was single,
undermined the exam book’s reliability. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
To the extent that Liu offered explanations for the
discrepancies the IJ identified, the IJ was not compelled to
credit them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
Cir. 2005). The IJ also reasonably determined that Qiu’s
hesitant and unresponsive demeanor undermined her
credibility with respect to her claim of past persecution.
See id. at 81 n.1; see also Shu Wen Sun v. Board of
Immigration Appeals, 510 F.3d 377, 380-81 (2d Cir. 2007).
Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
We also find no error in the agency’s denial of Qiu’s
claim of a fear of future persecution. The agency
reasonably found speculative Qiu’s claim that she had a
well-founded fear of persecution based on her intention to
have a second child. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d
125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that, absent solid
support in the record for the petitioner’s assertion that he
would be subjected to forced sterilization, his fear was
“speculative at best”).
3
II. CAT Claim
It is well settled that evidence demonstrating that
some individuals who left China illegally are imprisoned
upon their return, and that human rights violations
including torture occur in Chinese prisons, is insufficient
to establish a clear probability of torture for a particular
illegal emigrant. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Mu-
Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, because Qiu fails to demonstrate that someone
in her “particular alleged circumstances” is more likely
than not to face torture, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Qiu failed to demonstrate her
eligibility for CAT relief. See Mu-Xing Wang, 320 F.3d at
143-44.
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