11-7-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A089 266 793
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 23rd day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LIANFENG LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-7-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Man C. Yam, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
27 Assistant Director; Judith R.
28 O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
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 Lianfeng Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 6, 2010, order
7 of the BIA affirming the May 21, 2009, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lianfeng Li, No.
11 A089 266 793 (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 2010), aff’g No. A089 266 793
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21, 2009). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
20 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 For applications such as Li’s, governed by the
22 amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by
23 the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the
2
1 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
2 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
3 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
4 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart
5 of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C.
6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
7 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We will “defer to an IJ’s credibility
8 determination unless, from the totality of the
9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
10 could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
11 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported
12 by substantial evidence. The IJ reasonably based his
13 credibility finding on the following: (1) Li’s testimony
14 that she became interested in Christianity through a pastor
15 in Russia, and the omission of this information in her
16 asylum application; (2) Li’s inconsistent testimony
17 regarding (a) when she was arrested and the number of
18 encounters she had with Chinese officials, (b) who the
19 police asked to sign a guarantee, (c) when she held church
20 meetings, and (d) when she decided to leave China; (3) the
21 inconsistency between Li’s testimony and her husband’s
22 affidavit with regard to whether he participated in the
3
1 house church meeting; and (4) Li’s “flustered” demeanor.
2 Moreover, the IJ reasonably rejected Li’s explanations for
3 her inconsistent testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
4 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
5 Given the omission, inconsistent testimony,
6 inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and her application,
7 and the IJ’s demeanor finding, the totality of the
8 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility.
9 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
10 167.
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
4