12-63
Weng v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A089 906 476
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 11th day of September, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ZHEN NI WENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-63
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
24 Brown, New York, NY
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Catherine
29 B. Bye, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Zhen Ni Weng seeks review of a December 15,
10 2011, order of the BIA affirming the June 24, 2010, decision
11 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying his
12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen Ni
14 Weng, No. A089 906 476 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2011), aff’g No.
15 A089 906 476 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 24, 2010). We
16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
20 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
21 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
22 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
23 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
24
2
1 Weng challenges the agency’s adverse credibility
2 determination. For asylum applications, such as this one,
3 governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the
4 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
5 an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,”
6 and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to
7 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
9 Weng challenges the IJ’s credibility finding
10 principally on the grounds that the “alleged
11 inconsistencies” were “perceived on the part of the IJ
12 rather than actual.” (Pet’r Br. at 8). The record,
13 however, supports the agency’s conclusion that Weng
14 testified inconsistently. Weng provided conflicting
15 testimony regarding the dates of his prior arrests, with
16 some discrepancies spanning several months to several years.
17 He also did not testify accurately about when his wife’s
18 abortion certificate was issued, and the fact that a
19 certificate was issued suggested that the abortion was
20 voluntary. The agency’s conclusion that the certificate did
21 not support Weng’s testimony was reasonable.
22
3
1 Weng also argues that any inconsistencies should not be
2 held against him because he “possesses no formal education
3 and is illiterate.” (Id. at 9). The agency, however, was
4 not required to accept this explanation. See Majidi v.
5 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must
6 do more than offer a plausible explanation for his
7 inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
8 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
9 to credit his testimony.” (emphasis in original; quotation
10 marks omitted)).
11 Together, Weng’s demeanor, inconsistent statements, and
12 inadequate corroborating evidence provide substantial
13 evidence to support the agency’s credibility determination.
14 See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
15 2007). Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying his
16 applications for relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
17 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
22 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
4
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
5