17-396
Zhang v. Sessions
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A206 052 523
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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26th day of February, two thousand
5 eighteen.
6
7 PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MING HUI ZHANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-396
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York,
24 NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Linda S.
28 Wernery, Assistant Director;
29 Steven K. Uejio, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 United States Department of
32 Justice, Washington, DC.
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 Petitioner Ming Hui Zhang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 18,
7 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a June 1, 2016, decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Hui Zhang,
11 No. A 206 052 523 (B.I.A. Jan. 18, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 052
12 523 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 1, 2016). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
14 history in this case.
15 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for
16 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
17 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-
20 66 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
22 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility ruling on “the
2
1 consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written
2 and oral statements[,] . . . the consistency of such
3 statements with other evidence of record (including the
4 reports of the Department of State on country conditions),
5 and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements.”
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s
7 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no
8 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
9 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
10 The agency reasonably concluded that medical records
11 suggesting that Zhang’s abortion was voluntary undermined
12 her forced abortion claim. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446
13 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006). The agency was not required
14 to accept Zhang’s argument that family planning officials
15 requested the abortion, particularly because State
16 Department reports supported the IJ’s conclusion that the
17 document presented by Zhang was the type issued to obtain
18 leave from work after a voluntary abortion. A.R. 37-38;
19 see Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
20 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
21 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
22 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
3
1 compelled to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks
2 omitted)); Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 400 (concluding that IJ was
3 entitled to rely on a 1998 State Department report
4 concluding that “so-called ‘abortion certificates’” are
5 actually documents “issued by hospitals upon a patient’s
6 request after a voluntary abortion . . . as evidence to
7 request 2 weeks of sick leave”); see also U.S. State Dep’t,
8 2007 China Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions
9 ¶ 98 (May 2007).
10 Zhang’s inconsistencies and omissions regarding other
11 alleged harms, the family planning officials’ visits to her
12 home, the guarantee letter she was forced to sign, and her
13 loss of her work bonus, provide further support for the
14 adverse credibility ruling. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
15 166 n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission
16 are . . . functionally equivalent” for credibility
17 purposes.”).
18 These discrepancies, which call into question whether
19 Zhang’s abortion was forced or voluntary and whether she
20 faced any negative consequences for her pregnancy, provide
21 substantial evidence for the adverse credibility ruling.
22 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
4
1 167. The adverse credibility ruling is dispositive of
2 Zhang’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims,
3 which were all based on the same factual predicate. Paul
4 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Zhang’s pending
7 motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5