17-219
Wang v. Sessions
BIA
Segal, IJ
A205 582 728
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 11th day of May, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BI QING WANG, AKA WANG BI QING,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-219
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Russell J.E.
27 Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Kristin Moresi, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
1 United States Department of
2 Justice, Washington, DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Bi Qing Wang, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 3, 2017,
10 decision of the BIA affirming a November 30, 2015, decision
11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bi Qing Wang, No.
14 A 205 582 728 (B.I.A. Jan. 3, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 582 728
15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 30, 2015). We assume the parties’
16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
17 in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Wala v.
20 Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). The standards of
21 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
22 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may,
2 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base an
3 adverse credibility ruling on an applicant’s “demeanor,
4 candor, or responsiveness,” any inconsistencies in an
5 applicant’s oral and written statements or other record
6 evidence “without regard to whether an inconsistency,
7 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
8 claim,” and “any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
10 determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable
11 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”
12 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
13 Contrary to Wang’s position, which relies on pre-REAL ID
14 Act standards, the agency may rely on “any inconsistency or
15 omission in making an adverse credibility determination as
16 long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that
17 an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
18 at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Under this
19 standard, the agency reasonably relied on an inconsistency
20 regarding the date Wang’s mother was notified of Wang’s
21 arrest. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). A letter from Wang’s
3
1 mother stated that the police called her the day Wang was
2 arrested, but Wang testified that the police did not contact
3 her mother until two weeks after her arrest, to request that
4 she pay Wang’s bail.
5 Wang does not challenge the remaining bases for the
6 adverse credibility ruling, which are also supported by the
7 record. Wang confirmed multiple times that she was not in
8 China when the police visited her mother and questioned her
9 about Wang’s whereabouts on October 6, 2012. However, she
10 was unable to give her location and later testified that she
11 was in Fuzhou City (in her home province of Fujian) on October
12 6 and did not leave China until October 10. Wang’s
13 explanation that she meant to state that she had left her
14 hometown on October 6 is not compelling, given that she stated
15 unequivocally that she was “not in China” and confirmed this
16 answer several times. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
17 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a
18 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
19 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
20 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
21 (quotation marks omitted)). The agency also cited Wang’s
4
1 testimony about her location on October 6 as one example of
2 her lack of responsiveness, which was a frequent problem
3 throughout the hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
4 (agency may rely on applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or
5 responsiveness” in deciding credibility).
6 Wang also gave conflicting testimony regarding her U.S.
7 church attendance. She testified that she attended church
8 once per week, but the letter from her church confirmed
9 attendance only half as often. The IJ was not required to
10 credit Wang’s explanation that she sometimes missed church
11 because it did not account for the significant difference.
12 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
13 The above inconsistencies and Wang’s frequently non-
14 responsive testimony provide substantial evidence for the
15 adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because
17 Wang’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims were
18 all based on the same factual predicate, the adverse
19 credibility ruling is dispositive. Paul v. Gonzales, 444
20 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
21
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
3 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
6 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
8 34.1(b).
9
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
12
6
Wang v. Sessions
Combined Opinion