09-4923-ag
Fan v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A094 917 763
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 24th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 WU FAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4923-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Wu Fang, pro se, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Terri León-
28 Benner, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
30 Department of Justice, Washington
31 D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Wu Fan, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of the October 28, 2009,
7 order of the BIA affirming the January 17, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wu Fan,
11 No. A094 917 763 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2009), aff’g No. A094 917
12 763 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 17, 2008). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions including the portions of
17 the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See
18 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519, F.3d
21 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based
2 on what we conclude is substantial evidence in light of the
3 inconsistencies in Wu Fan’s testimony, inconsistencies
4 between his testimony and his asylum application, and
5 inconsistencies between his testimony and that of his sister
6 regarding his whereabouts in China prior to his departure
7 during the time he claimed to distribute Falun Gong
8 materials, his mother’s need for medical treatment, which he
9 claimed caused him to distribute Falun Gong materials for
10 money, and where and when he claims to practice Falun Gong
11 in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
12 (providing that an adverse credibility determination may be
13 based on “the consistency between the applicant’s or
14 witness’s written and oral statements . . ., the internal
15 consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such
16 statements with other evidence of record . . ., and any
17 inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without
18 regard to whether an inconsistency goes to the heart of the
19 applicant’s claim.”).
20 Although Wu Fan now attempts to explain why he and his
21 sister testified that he practiced Falun Gong at different
22 times of the day and why his sister first testified that she
3
1 saw him practice at a particular location and then testified
2 that she did not, the record supports the agency’s findings
3 that these were in fact inconsistencies. See Xiao Ji Chen
4 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 338, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 Neither Wu Fan nor his sister offered these explanations to
6 the agency, even though the inconsistencies were self-
7 evident.
8 In addition to his challenge to the adverse credibility
9 determination, Wu Fan claims that the agency erred in
10 finding that he had not suffered past persecution on account
11 of a protected ground. However, the agency did not make any
12 determination regarding a lack of a nexus to a protected
13 ground. It determined instead that the harm he claimed to
14 have suffered did not rise to the level of persecution
15 because the only harm he claimed was that the police were
16 looking for him. This allegation of harm is insufficient to
17 constitute a claim of persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S.
18 Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006); Matter
19 of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 216 (BIA 1985).
20 Finally, because the factual predicate of Wu Fan’s
21 claim of future persecution and torture, namely his alleged
22 distribution of Falun Gong materials in China and his
23 alleged current practice of Falun Gong in the United States,
4
1 is dependent on the testimony properly found not to be
2 credible, the agency reasonably denied withholding of
3 removal and CAT relief.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
6 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
7
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
12
13
14
5