13-1615
Zeng v. Holder
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A087 433 165
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 23rd day of July, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 BIHUA ZENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1615
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: WaiSim M. Cheung, Tsoi and
24 Associates, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
28 Director; Jesse M. Bless, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, U.S. Department of
31 Justice, 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 Petitioner Bihua Zeng, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 8,
7 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the March 31, 2011
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) F. James Loprest, Jr.,
9 denying Zeng’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Bihua Zeng, No. A087 433 165 (B.I.A. Apr. 8,
12 2013), aff’g No. A087 433 165 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 31,
13 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
19 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
21 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum applications
22 governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a
2
1 credibility finding on inconsistencies in the asylum
2 applicant’s statements and other record evidence without
3 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
4 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534
5 F.3d at 163-64. Here, substantial evidence supports the
6 agency’s determination that Zeng was not credible.
7 First, the agency reasonably relied on the fact that
8 Zeng failed to state at her credible fear interview that she
9 had been arrested and beaten and feared future harm on
10 account of her practice of Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-
12 67 & n.3. The agency did not err in concluding that the
13 record of Zeng’s credible fear interview was sufficiently
14 reliable because it included a typed verbatim transcript of
15 the questions asked and answered with the assistance of a
16 translator, indicated that the interviewer explained the
17 reasons for the interview, and posed questions designed to
18 elicit information regarding a potential asylum claim. See
19 Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 The agency was not compelled to credit Zeng’s explanation
21 for the omission. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80
22 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 The agency also did not err in finding that the record
2 was inconsistent regarding whether Zeng’s husband visited
3 her in hiding, where she lived while hiding, and when her
4 husband departed China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
5 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. The ag ency
6 reasonably relied further on Zeng's failure to provide a
7 corroborating statement from a fellow Falun Gong
8 practitioner in the United States. See Biao Yang v.
9 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Finally, the IJ
10 did not err in finding it implausible that Zeng practices
11 Falun Gong in light of her inability to testify as to
12 certain details of her practice. See Rizal v. Gonzales, 442
13 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that there may be
14 “instances in which the nature of an individual applicant’s
15 account would render his lack of a certain degree of
16 doctrinal knowledge suspect and could therefore provide
17 substantial evidence in support of an adverse credibility
18 finding”).
19 Given the omission, inconsistencies, and lack of
20 corroboration, the agency reasonably found Zeng not
21 credible, and denied her asylum, withholding of removal, and
22 CAT relief because those claims were based on the same
23
4
1 factual predicate. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66; see
2 also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
7 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
5