Hui Zhen Wang-Zhang v. Holder

09-1970-ag Wang-Zhang v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A094 797 923 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 10 th day of March, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 HUI ZHEN WANG-ZHANG, ALSO KNOWN AS 14 HUI ZHEN WANG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 09-1970-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 ______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates, 25 P.C., New York, New York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 29 Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior 30 Litigation Counsel, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, Civil 2 Division; Heather S. Navarro, Law 3 Clerk, United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Hui Zhen Wang-Zhang, a native and citizen of 11 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 14, 12 2009, order of the BIA affirming the June 14, 2007, decision 13 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying her 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hui 16 Zhen Wang-Zhang, No. A094 797 923 (B.I.A. Apr. 14, 2009), 17 aff’g No. A094 797 923 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 14, 2007). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history of this case. 20 We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the 21 BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 22 2005). The applicable standards of review are well- 23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin 24 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). 25 Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse 2 1 credibility determination. The IJ found Wang-Zhang not 2 credible because: (1) although she testified that she was 3 required to report to the public security bureau on three to 4 four occasions, neither her asylum application nor her 5 mother’s letter made any such assertion; (2) although she 6 testified that the police came to her home to ensure she was 7 not practicing Christianity, her asylum application 8 contained no such allegation; and (3) her testimony that her 9 parents were able to continue practicing Christianity 10 despite continued police visits to her home was implausible. 11 Wang-Zhang does not challenge these latter two 12 discrepancies, which stand as valid bases for the IJ’s 13 adverse credibility determination. See Biao Yang v. 14 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 1 15 Wang-Zhang argues that she adequately explained the 16 discrepancy regarding whether she reported to the public 17 security bureau. Although she asserts that the 18 inconsistency was “nothing more than a misunderstanding in 19 the semantics of the questions posed by the attorney for the 1 The IJ also noted other inconsistencies in Wang- Zhang's testimony. Because he found these discrepancies "not significant," and appears not to have based his credibility finding on them, we regard them as immaterial for purposes of this petition. 3 1 Department of Homeland Security,” a reasonable factfinder 2 would not have been compelled to credit this explanation. 3 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005); 4 see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167-68 (2d Cir. 5 2007). 6 In light of Wang-Zhang’s inconsistent and implausible 7 testimony, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse 8 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 10 Inasmuch as Wang-Zhang was unable to meet her burden for 11 asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden 12 required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 13 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 14 Although Wang-Zhang sets forth the standard for CAT 15 relief in her brief before this Court, she does not 16 challenge the basis of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief – that 17 she did not testify that she would be subject to anything 18 amounting to torture – or otherwise argue that any evidence 19 established a likelihood of torture upon return to China. 20 Accordingly, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT 21 relief should be deemed waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. 22 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the 3 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot. 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9 5