15-103
Jiang v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 151 654
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 14th day of December, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MINJIE JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-103
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron & Shelkin,
24 P.C., New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Derek C.
28 Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
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 Minjie Jiang, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 18, 2014,
11 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming
12 a February 6, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
13 denying Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
14 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
15 re Minjie Jiang, No. A201 151 654 (B.I.A. Dec. 18, 2014), aff’g
16 No. A201 151 654 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 6, 2013). We assume
17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528
21 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
23 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
1 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, like
2 Jiang’s, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
8 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 In this case, the adverse credibility determination is
11 supported by substantial evidence.
12 The IJ properly based his adverse credibility
13 determination on the discrepancy between statements made by
14 Jiang at his credible fear interview and his testimony and
15 asylum application concerning his alleged November 2010 arrest
16 for distributing religious pamphlets. Jiang’s application and
17 testimony stated he was arrested, detained, and beaten for
18 distributing pamphlets, after which police raided his
19 underground church in December 2010, leading him to flee China.
20 However, during Jiang’s credible fear interview, he stated only
21 that police raided his underground church in December 2010. He
3
1 specifically stated that he had not had any other problems in
2 China and that he had never been harmed. When asked to explain,
3 Jiang testified that the smuggler who helped him enter the
4 United States told him not to tell immigration officials about
5 his arrest because Jiang would be deported if he did so. The
6 IJ properly rejected Jiang’s explanation. Majidi v. Gonzales,
7 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ also noted that Jiang
8 admitted to lying to avoid deportation at his interview, a fact
9 which supports the IJ’s credibility finding. Siewe v.
10 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007).
11 Considering the significant discrepancy between Jiang’s
12 claim as presented at the interview and as presented to the IJ,
13 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
14 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin,
15 534 F.3d at 165-66. This finding was sufficient to deny asylum,
16 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all three claims were
17 based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
18 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
19 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
20
21
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5