12-4539
Qiu v. Holder
BIA
Segal, IJ
A087 873 654
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 Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 22nd day of January, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
BING YU QIU,
Petitioner,
v. 12-4539
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
Director; Surell Brady, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Bing Yu Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of an October 10, 2012 order
of the BIA affirming the August 16, 2011 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alice Segal, denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re
Bing Yu Qiu, No. A087 873 654 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2012), aff’g
No. A087 873 654 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16, 2011). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history of this case.
We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the
decision of the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268,
271 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency’s findings of fact will be
affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence, and
may be overturned only if “any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Singh v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 207,
212 (2d Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Qiu’s testimony was not credible. Qiu’s testimony regarding
when and how she began to practice Christianity was
inconsistent with that of her uncle, who was her sole
witness. Moreover, Qiu’s uncle conceded that he had
fabricated his testimony due to pressure from other family
members. The agency reasonably relied on these material
inconsistencies to conclude that Qiu was not credible. See
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)
(noting that “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or
omission in making an adverse credibility determination as
long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that
an asylum applicant is not credible” (emphasis in original)
(citation omitted)). Thus, Qiu failed to meet her burden of
presenting credible evidence in support of her claim. Mei
Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2011) (“An
asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing through
credible evidence that he suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of future persecution if removed from the
United States.”).
3
Because Qiu’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT
relief depend on the same factual predicate as the asylum
claim, the agency’s adverse credibility determination also
disposes of those claims. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, Qiu’s pending
motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4