13-3001
Cui v. Lynch
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A087 640 120
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 28th day of August, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 RI CUI, AKA MIN SOO JANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3001
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
1
2 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, NY.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
5 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
6 Assistant Director; Joanna L.
7 Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of
8 Immigration Litigation, United
9 States Department of Justice,
10 Washington, D.C.
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
15 is DENIED.
16 Ri Cui, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
17 of China, seeks review of an August 1, 2013, decision of the
18 BIA affirming the June 19, 2012, decision of Immigration
19 Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied his
20 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
21 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ri Cui,
22 No. A087 640 120 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2013), aff’g No. A087 640
23 120 (Immig. Ct. June 19, 2012). We assume the parties’
24 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
25 in this case.
26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
27 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
28 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
2
1 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). The applicable
2 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
4 (2d Cir. 2009).
5 Cui’s asylum application is governed by the REAL ID Act
6 of 2005. Accordingly, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
7 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding
8 on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or
9 responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and
10 inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether
11 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” so long as
12 they reasonably support an inference that the applicant is
13 not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia
14 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). “We defer
15 . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the
16 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
17 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
18 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. In this
19 case, the agency reasonably based its adverse credibility
20 determination on the numerous inconsistencies in Cui’s
21 evidence, and the lack of a plausible explanation for those
22 inconsistencies.
3
1 The IJ found that Cui was not credible because he
2 provided an inconsistent account of when his North Korean
3 relatives came to China, when he arrived in the United
4 States, what injuries he sustained as a result of being
5 beaten while in custody, and the length of his detention.
6 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings.
7 Furthermore, Cui was confronted with the inconsistencies as
8 he testified, and the agency reasonably found that he did
9 not adequately explain them. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
10 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 The totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s
12 adverse credibility determination, based on the
13 inconsistencies in Cui’s evidence and his lack of credible
14 explanation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
15 Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because the only evidence of a threat
16 to Cui’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, the
17 adverse credibility finding defeats his claims for asylum,
18 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
19 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED.
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
4