Shifeng Jiang v. Holder

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