Mei Fang Ren v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

07-5343-ag Ren v. USCIS BIA Page, IJ A 097 390 656 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 14 th day of January, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 13 _______________________________________ 14 15 MEI FANG REN, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 07-5343-ag 19 NAC 20 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 21 SERVICES, 22 Respondent. 23 24 ________________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, New York. 27 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, 3 Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 Civil Division, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 D.C. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Mei Fang Ren, a native and citizen of China, 15 seeks review of the October 31, 2007 order of the BIA 16 denying her motion to remand and affirming the April 10, 17 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan L. Page 18 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 19 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 20 re Mei Fang Ren, No. A 097 390 656 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2007), 21 aff’g No. A 097 390 656 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 10, 22 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 23 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 24 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 25 the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 26 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The 27 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 28 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); See also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 2 1 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 As a preliminary matter, Ren’s brief does not challenge 3 the agency’s findings that she failed to establish a well- 4 founded fear of persecution or torture on account of: (1) 5 the birth of her first U.S. citizen child; or (2) her 6 illegal departure from China. Ren has therefore waived any 7 challenge to those findings. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 8 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 9 The IJ rejected Ren’s political-opinion claim after 10 finding her not credible. Ren argues that the IJ 11 erroneously relied on her airport and credible fear 12 interviews as a basis for the adverse credibility 13 determination; however, there is a “sufficiently accurate 14 record” of these interviews to merit consideration in 15 determining her credibility. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 16 357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2004); Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 17 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). As to Ren’s assertion that 18 the IJ erroneously relied on omissions and inconsistencies 19 that did not go to the heart of her claim, the cumulative 20 effect of those discrepancies constitutes substantial 21 evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See Tu 22 Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ 3 1 therefore did not err in denying Ren’s application for 2 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief to the extent 3 her claim was based on alleged difficulties with Chinese 4 authorities. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d 5 Cir. 2006). 6 Ren also argues that the BIA erred in denying her 7 motion to remand because: (1) it applied the wrong legal 8 standard; and (2) “the existence of U.S. born children is 9 sufficient under the prima facie evidence standard for a 10 remand.” We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand 11 for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. Dep't of Justice, 12 421 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2005). The BIA did not abuse its 13 discretion. We have previously reviewed the BIA’s 14 consideration of evidence similar to that which Ren 15 submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that 16 such evidence is insufficient to establish a reasonable 17 possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 18 546 F.3d 138, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Wei Guang Wang 19 v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, even 20 if we were to credit Ren’s argument that the BIA applied the 21 improper legal standard, remand would be futile because she 22 did not establish her prima facie eligibility for relief. 4 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 4 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 5 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 6 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 7 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12 By:___________________________ 5