13-2152
Weng v. Holder
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A201 151 537
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 27th day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Xiang Hua Weng,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2152
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Emily Anne Radford,
27 Assistant Director; Kohsei Ugumori,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, 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 Xiang Hua Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a May 21, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an
7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) May 22, 2012, denial of asylum,
8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiang Hua Weng, No. A201 151
10 537 (B.I.A. May 21, 2013), aff’g No. A201 151 537 (Immig.
11 Ct. N.Y. City May 22, 2012). We assume the parties’
12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
13 of this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, the Court should
15 review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
16 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
17 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia
19 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 For asylum applications, like Weng’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.” 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
4 Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
5 determination. In finding Weng not credible, the agency
6 reasonably relied on the fact that her testimony was
7 inconsistent with statements made during a credible fear
8 interview regarding when and whether she practiced
9 Christianity in China. In making this finding, the agency
10 reasonably concluded that the record of Weng’s credible fear
11 interview was sufficiently reliable: it consisted of a typed
12 account of the questions asked and answered with the
13 assistance of a translator, which reflected that the
14 interviewer explained the reasons for the interview, and
15 posed questions designed to elicit information regarding a
16 potential asylum claim. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d
17 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). The record of Weng’s border
18 interview also exhibits these hallmarks of reliability.
19 Id.; see also Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-
20 80 (2d Cir. 2004).
21
22
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
4