13-675
Wang v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 974 622
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 24th day of June, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 CHUN LI WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-675
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Grace Victoria Calle, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
27 Director; Kristen Giuffreda Chapman,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Chun Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a January 28, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming
7 an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) September 22, 2011 denial of
8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun Li Wang, No.
10 A087 974 622 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2013), aff’g No. A087 974 622
11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 22, 2011). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history of this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
16 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
17 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
19 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 For asylum applications, like Wang’s, governed by the
21 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
22 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on
23 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other
2
1 record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the
2 heart of the applicant’s claim,” demeanor and responsiveness
3 to questioning, and the “inherent plausibility” of the
4 applicant’s account. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
5 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the
6 agency’s adverse credibility determination.
7 First, we defer to the IJ’s findings regarding
8 demeanor. The agency made a preliminary finding that Wang’s
9 demeanor suggested he was testifying in a scripted manner.
10 This finding is supported by the record and is
11 “paradigmatically the sort of evidence that a fact-finder is
12 best positioned to evaluate.” Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d
13 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 The adverse credibility determination is further
15 supported by the IJ’s identification of inconsistencies in
16 the record and omissions from Wang’s asylum application.
17 As the agency found, Wang’s asylum application lacked any
18 information about his religious activities between 1993 and
19 2004. Wang explicitly stated in his application that he
20 “didn’t have contact . . . with Christianity” during this
21 time period. However, he testified that he prayed and read
22 the Bible in his home throughout this period. Viewed as
3
1 either as an omission or an inconsistency, the agency’s
2 consideration of this discrepancy in determining credibility
3 was appropriate. Furthermore, Wang’s explanation for the
4 omission–namely, that this information was not important–was
5 insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony was
6 credible. “A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
7 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure
8 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder
9 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v.
10 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal
11 quotation marks and citations omitted).
12 The agency also reasonably relied on testimonial
13 inconsistencies regarding whether Wang sought medical
14 attention after his alleged beating for attending an
15 underground church. Wang initially stated he received no
16 medical attention, but then stated that he did receive
17 treatment at a private clinic. Further, Wang’s explanation
18 for omitting information about his injuries from his asylum
19 application –- that he “did not think about this” –- also
20 was insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony
21 was credible. Id.
22 Given the demeanor findings and the inconsistencies and
23 omissions relating to the practice of Christianity and sole
4
1 allegation of past harm, the “totality of the circumstances”
2 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
3 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. As all of Wang’s claims
4 share the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility
5 determination is dispositive. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
6 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
5