09-1643-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A094 917 764
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 24 th day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 SONG CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1643-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Kimberly A.
28 Burdge, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, 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 Song Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 26, 2009, order
7 of the BIA affirming the January 8, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Song
11 Chen, No. A094 917 764 (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), aff’g No.
12 A094 917 764 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 8, 2008). 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 review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
20 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
2 credibility finding. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see
3 also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
4 I n making her adverse credibility determination, the IJ
5 found that: (1) Chen gave inconsistent dates regarding when
6 he was allegedly arrested in China; (2) although Chen
7 testified that his father was still in hiding in China, his
8 father’s letter stated that he currently lives at home; (3)
9 Chen failed to mention during his credible fear interview
10 that he was arrested in China for promoting Falun Gong; and
11 (4) Chen failed to corroborate his claim that he practices
12 Falun Gong in the United States. Such were adequate bases
13 for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See 8
14 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
15 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). To the extent that Chen offered
16 explanations, the IJ was not compelled to credit them. See
17 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
22 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
4