09-1969-ag
Wang v. BIA
BIA
Sichel, IJ
A094 813 829
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 2 nd day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 GUO MAN WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1969-ag
17 NAC
18
19 BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Pro Se
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; James A. Hunolt, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Margaret A.
28 O’Donnell, 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 Guo Man Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 9, 2009, order
7 of the BIA affirming the December 6, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Helen J. Sichel, which denied
9 Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Guo Man Wang, No. A094 813 829 (BIA Apr. 9, 2009), aff’g No.
12 A094 813 829 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6, 2007). 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 IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly
17 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
18 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
19 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia
20 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v.
21 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
22 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
23 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
2
1 167. The IJ found that Wang was not credible based on: (1)
2 his inconsistent testimony about his wife’s affidavit; (2)
3 his inconsistent testimony regarding his knowledge of the
4 Democratic Party in China; (3) his lack of knowledge about
5 the pro-democracy group he claimed to be involved with in
6 China; (4) his failure to mention his alleged beating in his
7 initial asylum application; (5) his inconsistent testimony
8 about the nature of his injuries; and (6) his inconsistent
9 testimony about the hospital he claimed he went to after the
10 beating he allegedly endured. In his brief, Wang argues
11 that the IJ’s credibility finding was erroneous because she
12 relied on minor inconsistencies that did not go to the heart
13 of his claim. Contrary to Wang’s argument, under the REAL
14 ID Act, which applied to Wang’s application for relief, “an
15 IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an
16 adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality
17 of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant
18 is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (emphasis in
19 original); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
20 Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 265 (BIA 2007)
21 (finding that “the REAL ID Act no longer requires the trier
22 of fact to find a nexus between inconsistencies and the
23 ‘heart of the claim’”). Moreover, no reasonable fact finder
24 would have been compelled to credit Wang’s explanations for
3
1 the discrepancies the IJ identified. See Majidi v.
2 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly,
3 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by
4 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii),
5 1252(b)(4)(B).
6 Because Wang’s claims were all based on the same
7 factual predicate, the agency’s denial of his application
8 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was
9 proper. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
10 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
4