09-4075-ag
Zheng v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A099 592 469
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 23 rd day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13
14 QIAO LING ZHENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 09-4075-ag
18 v. NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New
26 York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General, Civil Division; Greg D.
30 Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel;
31 Elizabeth A. McAdams, Law Clerk,
32 Office of Immigration Litigation,
33 Civil Division, United States
34 Department of Justice, Washington,
1 D.C.
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
5 is DENIED.
6 Petitioner, Qiao Ling Zheng, a native and citizen of
7 China, seeks review of a September 4, 2009, order of the BIA
8 affirming the December 4, 2007, decision of Immigration
9 Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo denying her application for
10 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiao Ling Zheng,
12 No. A099 592 469 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2009), aff’g No. A099 592
13 469 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 4, 2007). Zheng has
14 abandoned her CAT claim and any claim for relief based on
15 fear of persecution for leaving China illegally or violating
16 its family planning policy. We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
18 of the case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
20 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
21 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
2
1 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
3 (2d Cir. 2009).
4 The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by
5 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Under
6 the REAL ID Act, an IJ may base a credibility determination
7 on the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the
8 applicant,” “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s .
9 . . account,” and “any inaccuracies or falsehoods of [an
10 applicant’s] statements, . . . without regard to whether an
11 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
12 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” REAL
13 ID Act of 2005 § 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
14 While an IJ must consider evidence that is independently
15 corroborated, a finding that an alien adduced false
16 documents may “infect the balance of [his] uncorroborated or
17 unauthenticated evidence.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160,
18 170 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court “defer[s] . . . to an
19 IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of
20 the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-
21 finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu
22 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
3
1 Zheng's original asylum application and accompanying
2 affidavits fraudulently asserted that Zheng had been
3 arrested and raped by Chinese police on account of her Roman
4 Catholic religion. Zheng later disavowed those statements
5 and admitted she had not been persecuted in China. Contrary
6 to Zheng’s argument, the IJ was entitled to rely on her
7 admittedly fraudulent assertions and affidavits in assessing
8 her overall credibility. Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170; Wensheng
9 Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2007). In support
10 of her amended application, Zheng resubmitted the falsified
11 affidavits and a letter from a bishop that was obtained by
12 an author of a falsified affidavit. The IJ properly
13 declined to credit them. See Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170; Xiao
14 Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.
15 2006). Although Zheng did submit independent evidence of
16 her recent church attendance, the IJ reasonably questioned
17 her motivation for attending church based on her inability
18 to explain why she did not attend a church for four years
19 after entering the United States. See Siewe, 480 F.3d at
20 168-70.
21 Moreover, the IJ reasonably relied on the absence of
22 testimony by Zheng’s sister in concluding that Zheng’s
4
1 alleged fear of persecution based on her religious beliefs
2 lacked credibility. The IJ did not need to show that her
3 sister’s testimony was reasonably available because Zheng
4 was not otherwise credible. See 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 341; Xiu Xia
6 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
7 Because Zheng’s claims relied entirely on her
8 credibility, the IJ did not err in denying her application
9 for asylum and withholding of removal based on his adverse
10 credibility finding. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
11 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5