12-4793
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A088 349 487
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 14th day of April, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 SHIFENG JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4793
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director; Bernard A.
29 Joseph, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
31 Department of Justice, Washington
32 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 Shifeng Jiang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 14,
7 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the December 22, 2010,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen,
9 denying Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Shifeng Jiang, No. A088 349 487 (B.I.A. Nov.
12 14, 2012), aff’g No. A088 349 487 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec.
13 22, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history 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); see also Xiu Xia
20 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For
21 asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency
22 may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a
2
1 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the
2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
3 statements and other record evidence without regard to
4 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
6 64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 determination that Jiang was not credible.
8 In finding him not credible, the IJ reasonably relied
9 on Jiang’s demeanor, noting that his manner and answers
10 changed when confronted with record inconsistencies. See
11 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
12 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is
13 supported by the hearing transcript.
14 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is further
15 supported by specific examples of contradictory statements.
16 See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109
17 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our
18 review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where,
19 as here, they are supported by specific examples of
20 inconsistent testimony.”). Indeed, the IJ reasonably found
21 inconsistencies and omissions in record evidence related to
22 the circumstances surrounding Jiang’s employment as a guard
3
1 for a village chief, the beating that he purportedly
2 suffered, and the location of his practice of Falun Gong.
3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534
4 F.3d at 163-64, 166 n.3. Jiang failed to provide compelling
5 explanations for the discrepancies in the record. See
6 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
7 Given the demeanor and inconsistency findings, the
8 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
9 substantial evidence, and was dispositive of Jiang’s claims
10 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu
11 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444
12 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. The pending request for oral argument in this
15 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
17 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
4