13-3996
Ye v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 168 525
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 28th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 QING YE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3996
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Katharine E. Clark, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Kabina Laeticia
29 Mukala, Law Clerk; Jem C. Sponzo,
1 Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Qing Ye, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 25, 2013,
11 decision of the BIA affirming an August 7, 2012, decision of
12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ye’s application for
13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qing Ye, No. A200 168 525
15 (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2013), aff’g No. A200 168 525 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
16 City Aug. 7, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
17 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
19 IJ’s decision and the BIA’s decision, “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
21 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
2
1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
2 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, such
4 as Ye’s, the agency may, considering the totality of the
5 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
6 applicant’s “demeanor, candor or responsiveness,” the
7 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in the
8 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of
9 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
10 Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 562 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We “defer
11 to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality
12 of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
13 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin,
14 534 F.3d at 167.
15 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
16 determination. The IJ relied on internal and external
17 inconsistencies in Ye’s testimony, Ye’s evident unfamiliarity
18 with documents he submitted, and Ye’s tendency to alter his
19 testimony when confronted with an inconsistency. The record
20 supports all of these findings. For instance, he stated that
21 he never sought medical attention after being beaten, but when
3
1 confronted with a certificate from a hospital, he stated that
2 he discussed his injuries with a doctor. While Ye’s evidence
3 demonstrated that his church friend, like Ye himself, was made
4 to report to police after release from detention, and that the
5 Chinese church Ye attended had been forced to dissolve, Ye was
6 seemingly unaware of either of these facts, indicating
7 unfamiliarity with his own evidence. The explanation for the
8 latter inconsistency--that he knew (but did not say) that the
9 church was dissolved, but could not say whether it had
10 reopened--would not compel a reasonable fact-finder to credit
11 his testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
12 Cir. 2005).
13 Finally, the record supports the IJ’s finding that Ye
14 viewed his hospital certificate as evidence that he was still
15 in China in June 2010, and did not connect it with his alleged
16 past persecution. Ye initially testified that he did not seek
17 medical attention after being released from detention, and his
18 bruises took one month to heal. Only when the Government
19 pointed out that his hospital visit took place less than one
20 week after his release did he mention that the doctor he saw
21 commented on his bruises, and said they were healing.
4
1 Considering Ye’s inconsistent testimony, his
2 unfamiliarity with his documentary evidence, and his
3 willingness to change his testimony, the totality of
4 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility
5 determination. Because his claim for relief depends on his
6 credibility, the adverse credibility determination is
7 dispositive of his applications for asylum and withholding of
8 removal. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
16 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5