16-3347
Jiang v. Sessions
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A205 237 041
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 17th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HEJING JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-3347
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Corey T. Lee, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Linda S.
27 Wernery, Assistant Director;
28 William C. Minick, 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 Hejing Jiang, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 26,
10 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 9, 2015, decision
11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application
12 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hejing Jiang, No.
14 A 205 237 041 (B.I.A. Aug. 26, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 237 041
15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 9, 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 review both the
19 IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.”
20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
21 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
23 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
2 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility ruling on “the
3 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
4 witness, . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or
5 witness’s written and oral statements, . . . the internal
6 consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such
7 statements with other evidence of record, . . . any
8 inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, . . . or any
9 other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We
10 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . .
11 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an
12 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
13 The agency reasonably relied on the lack of consistency
14 between Jiang’s and her pastor’s testimony regarding whether
15 members of her church distributed religious flyers.
16 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Jiang testified that her
17 church “does not ever pass out flyers,” and that she would
18 distribute such flyers if she had the opportunity to do so.
19 However, Jiang’s pastor testified that church members
20 generally handed out flyers in the spring and that the church
21 printed flyers and left them on the table where members sign
22 in, so that “anyone who wants to do that would pick up flyers
3
1 and distribute.” Jiang’s argument that she meant that there
2 was no organized group that distributed flyers does not
3 explain the discrepancy. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
4 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer
5 a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
6 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
7 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
8 (quotation marks omitted)).
9 The lack of consistency between Jiang’s testimony and
10 her husband’s regarding her baptism date also detracted from
11 her credibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Jiang
12 testified that she was baptized on December 25, 2011. As
13 Jiang argues, this testimony was consistent with her baptism
14 certificate, her pastor’s testimony, her application, and two
15 letters from her church. But Jiang’s husband could not
16 remember that date or even the year of Jiang’s baptism,
17 testifying that it was either March 2012 or March 2011. His
18 lack of knowledge undermines Jiang’s testimony that her
19 husband played a large role in her conversion to Christianity,
20 especially because Jiang testified that her baptism was when
21 she became a “real Christian.” The IJ was not required to
4
1 accept her husband’s explanation of nervousness. Majidi, 430
2 F.3d at 80.
3 The agency’s negative demeanor finding, which Jiang does
4 not challenge, provides further support for the adverse
5 credibility ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Li
6 Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.
7 2006) (granting particular deference to credibility findings
8 based on an applicant’s demeanor). As does Jiang’s failure
9 to produce reliable corroboration. Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
10 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An applicant’s failure to
11 corroborate his . . . testimony may bear on credibility,
12 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an
13 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already
14 been called into question.”). As discussed above, Jiang’s
15 witnesses introduced inconsistency and the IJ reasonably
16 accorded diminished weight to Jiang’s parents’ letter because
17 it was authored by interested parties who were not available
18 for cross examination. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 334 (2d
19 Cir. 2013).
20 The above discrepancies, which call into question Jiang’s
21 practice of Christianity and her fear of persecution in China,
22 provide substantial evidence for the adverse credibility
5
1 ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
2 F.3d at 167. Because Jiang’s asylum, withholding of removal,
3 and CAT claims were all based on the same factual predicate,
4 the adverse credibility ruling is dispositive. Paul v.
5 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
6 we do not address the IJ’s alternative determinations. See
7 INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule
8 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
9 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
10 they reach.”).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED.
13
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
16 Clerk of Court
6