12-4245
Zhang v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 588 267
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 6th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 PETER W. HALL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JIAN FENG ZHANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 12-4245
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Meadow W.
29 Platt, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, 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 Jian Feng Zhang, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of an October 10, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming
7 the March 4, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary
8 M. Cheng, which denied his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Feng Zhang, No. A087
11 588 267 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2012), aff’g No. A087 588 267
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 4, 2011). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 For applications, like Zhang’s, governed by the REAL ID
22 Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
23 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum
2
1 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
3 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
4 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see id. at § 1231(b)(3)(C); Xiu Xia
6 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We defer
7 to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, “from the
8 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
9 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
10 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
11 Here, the agency reasonably found Zhang not credible
12 based on a major inconsistency among his credible fear
13 interview, asylum application, and hearing testimony. See
14 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166
15 n.3. Zhang mentions a June 2008 incident with the police at
16 three different places in his asylum application, detailing
17 how the police came to his home, beat him with their fists
18 and feet, and left him in pain. However, he did not mention
19 this incident at all at his credible fear interview or
20 during direct examination. At the hearing, when Zhang was
21 asked how many times he had problems in China, he answered,
22 only once in August 2008. On cross-examination, Zhang
3
1 changed his testimony to say that there had been two
2 incidents with the police, one in June and one in August.
3 This inconsistency goes to the heart of Zhang’s claim that
4 he suffered past persecution on account of his religion, as
5 the June 2008 incident was the only allegation of arrest or
6 physical harm. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
7 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
8 In addition, Zhang failed to otherwise corroborate his
9 practice of Christianity as he did not call witnesses from
10 his church or family to verify that he attends church in the
11 United States, despite the fact that his hearing date had
12 been set for over a year. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales v.
13 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
14 Furthermore, the agency considered and reasonably
15 rejected Zhang’s explanations for both his omission of the
16 June 2008 arrest and beating and his lack of corroboration.
17 When questioned why he did not mention the June 2008
18 incident at the credible fear interview, Zhang offered that
19 the interviewer did not ask the detailed questions and he
20 had failed to explain himself clearly. He further noted
21 that the June incident was not serious and he often forgets
22 to mention it. As the June incident was the only arrest or
4
1 physical harm Zhang suffered in China, the agency was not
2 compelled to credit the explanation, particularly given the
3 detailed account and level of harm described in his asylum
4 application. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
5 Cir. 2005) (A petitioner “must do more than offer a
6 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
7 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
8 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
9 (emphasis original, internal quotations and citation
10 omitted)).
11 The agency also reasonably rejected Zhang’s explanation
12 that no fellow parishioners or family members could verify
13 his church attendance because they were too busy or out of
14 status, particularly since they lived in New York, he had a
15 year to obtain witnesses, and he made no request for
16 telephonic testimony. Cf. id.
17 The adverse credibility determination is further
18 supported by the IJ’s demeanor finding, to which we defer.
19 See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 116 (2d Cir. 2006)
20 (“the IJ’s opportunity to judge demeanor causes us to grant
21 particular deference to credibility findings based on
22 demeanor” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
23
5
1 Finally, because the agency’s adverse credibility
2 determination is dispositive, we do not reach the
3 alternative finding that Zhang failed to meet his burden of
4 proof. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a
5 general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
6 findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
7 the results they reach.”). For the foregoing reasons, the
8 petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our
9 review, any stay of removal that the Court previously
10 granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
11 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
12 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
13 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
14 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
6