12-4711
Zhu v. Holder
BIA
Zagzoug, IJ
A089 278 508
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 6th day of August, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BANG ZHU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4711
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; James A. Hunolt, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd
29 Busen, 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 Bang Zhu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 6,
7 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the November 1, 2010,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Randa Zagzoug, denying
9 Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Bang Zhu, No. A089 278 508 (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2012), aff’g No.
12 A089 278 508 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2010). We assume
13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 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 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); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
5 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
6 determination that Zhu was not credible.
7 In finding her not credible, the IJ reasonably relied
8 on Zhu’s inconsistent statements regarding whether she
9 distributed religious flyers prior to fleeing police in
10 China, whether anyone accompanied her to the airport upon
11 her departure from that country, and when she last contacted
12 her friend who introduced her to Christianity. See 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Zhu
14 failed to provide compelling explanations for the
15 discrepancies in the record. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
16 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
17 Given the inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse
18 credibility determination is supported by substantial
19 evidence, and was dispositive of Zhu’s claims for asylum,
20 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin,
21 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
22 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
23
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
4