08-6081-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
LaForest, IJ
A095 530 701
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. W HEN
CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH TH IS CO URT, A PARTY M UST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION
“SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY
PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 1 st day of February,two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
REENA RAGGI,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
___________________________________
YING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v. 08-6081-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., *
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
___________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney
General Mark R. Filip as a respondent in this case.
FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Century City,
California.
FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, Stephen J.
Flynn, Assistant Director, Jeffrey
R. Meyer, Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Ying Chen, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 26,
2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 22, 2007
decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte LaForest
denying Chen’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In re Ying Chen, No. A095 530 701 (B.I.A. Nov. 26,
2008), aff’g No. A095 530 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 22,
2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ's
conclusion that a petitioner is not credible and, without
rejecting any of the IJ's grounds for decision, emphasizes
-2-
particular aspects of that decision, we will review both the
BIA's and IJ's opinions – or more precisely, we review the
IJ's decision including the portions not explicitly
discussed by the BIA.” Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual
findings, including adverse credibility determinations,
under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d
Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and the
application of law to undisputed fact. See Passi v.
Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination
that Chen was not credible. Chen admitted that she lied
under oath about a previously filed fiancee relative
petition. An IJ may properly conclude that an applicant’s
willingness to lie under oath “infect[s] the balance of
[her] uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence,” Siewe v.
Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2007), and Chen’s
explanation for lying was not so compelling that the IJ
erred by declining to credit it, see Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
-3-
Additionally, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s
finding that Chen was unable to provide a reasonable
explanation for any of the following discrepancies: (1)
while Chen testified that she worked at a factory in October
2005, when she was allegedly forced to submit to an
abortion, a biographic information form in the record
provided no such information; (2) Chen’s household
registration did not indicate that she worked as an
accountant at a factory; and (3) although Chen testified
that she had paid the 5000 RMB fine that the family planning
authorities had levied against her, the letter from her
mother failed to include that information. The BIA did not
err in holding that, under the REAL ID Act, the IJ was
entitled to rely on the cumulative effect of these
discrepancies, without regard to whether they “go[] to the
heart of [Chen’s] claim,” in finding that Chen was not
credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir. 2008).
Finally, because Chen’s claims for withholding of
removal and CAT relief are based on the same factual
predicate as her asylum claim, this adverse credibility
determination defeats all of Chen’s claims. See Paul v.
-4-
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal is
DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
-5-