09-1664-ag
Jiang-Jin v. Holder
BIA
Romig, IJ
A 094 794 437
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 8 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YOU JIANG-JIN, a.k.a. JIN YOU JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1664-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
27 Assistant Director; Judith R.
28 O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation,
30 Washington D.C.
31
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner You Jiang-Jin, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of the March 26, 2009, order of the BIA affirming
7 the November 7, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Jeffrey L. Romig denying his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re You Jiang-Jin, No. A 094 794
11 437 (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), aff’g No. A 094 794 437 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 7, 2007). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s
16 decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v.
17 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
20 Cir. 2009).
21 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported
22 by substantial evidence. In making that determination, the IJ
2
1 properly relied on several inconsistencies between Jiang-Jin’s
2 written asylum application and his testimony. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For example, although Jiang-Jin stated
4 in his asylum application that he worked at a factory in
5 Sichuan Province from October 2002 until January 2005, he
6 testified that he only worked at the factory for six months,
7 from November 2003 until April 2004. Jiang-Jin admits this
8 inconsistency, and his argument that it is an insufficient
9 basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
10 without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (in
11 assessing credibility, the IJ may rely on the inconsistencies
12 in statements, without regard to whether they “go to the heart
13 of the applicant’s claim”). Moreover, this inconsistency, the
14 IJ found, “was not simply a matter of confusion over dates,
15 since [Jiang-Jin]’s account of when he was introduced to Falun
16 Gong is clearly intertwined with his alleged period of
17 employment at the factory.” In addition, the IJ found that
18 Jiang-Jin’s statement in his asylum application that he left
19 China illegally and was not issued a passport contradicted his
20 testimony that he left China with “exit permission” on a valid
21 passport issued in his own name. The IJ also found that
22 Jiang-Jin’s failure to list his address in Sichuan Province on
3
1 his asylum application, despite the fact that he claimed to
2 have lived there while working at the factory, reflected
3 adversely on his credibility.
4 These findings alone provided substantial evidence for
5 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1252(b)(4)(B). We therefore need not address the IJ’s
7 additional credibility findings. Furthermore, because Jin-
8 Jiang’s testimony and unauthenticated documents provided the
9 only evidence that he was likely to be persecuted or tortured,
10 and because the acceptance of that evidence depended upon his
11 credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this
12 case necessarily precluded success on his claims for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
14 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t
15 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
18 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
19 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
20 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
21 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
25
26
27
4