Lan Yan v. Holder

09-5098-ag Yan v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A099 026 125 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 19 th day of January, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 LAN YAN, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 09-5098-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 ______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Law Office of 26 Gerald Karikari, P.C., New York, New 27 York. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 30 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant 31 Director; Anthony C. Payne, Senior 32 Litigation Counsel, Office of 33 Immigration Litigation, Civil 34 Division, U.S. Department of 35 Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 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, Lan Yan, a native and citizen of the 7 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 18, 8 2009, order of the BIA affirming the March 12, 2008, 9 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert 10 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 11 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 12 re Lan Yan, No. A099 026 125 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009), aff’g 13 No. A099 026 125 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2008). We 14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 15 and procedural history of the case. 16 “Where the BIA adopts an IJ’s decision, we review the 17 IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility 18 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, 19 treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable 20 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 21 contrary.’” Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 22 2008), quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen 23 Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 380 (2d Cir. 2007) (“we undertake 2 1 a highly deferential review of the IJ’s findings,” including 2 adverse credibility determnations (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse 4 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably found Yan not 5 credible because: (1) her testimony that she was detained 6 for three days was contradicted by her asylum application in 7 which she indicated that she had never been detained; (2) in 8 her credible fear interview, her application, and her 9 testimony, she gave conflicting accounts of the gender, 10 birth order, and birth dates of her two children, and she 11 has offered only incredible explanations for those 12 inconsistencies; and (3) she admitted at her hearing that 13 she lied to immigration officials, giving yet another 14 conflicting account of her children’s gender to avoid 15 removal. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166-167 16 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, a reasonable factfinder would not 17 have been compelled to credit her explanations for the 18 inconsistency and falsehood. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 19 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, the IJ’s 20 unchallenged finding that Yan failed to provide adequate 21 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her otherwise 22 incredible testimony provides further support for the IJ’s 3 1 adverse credibility determination. See Biao Yang v. 2 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 3 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was fatal to 4 her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 5 relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 6 2006). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14 4