Filed: Jul. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-251 Han v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A087 481 101 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 NOTA
Summary: 12-251 Han v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A087 481 101 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 NOTAT..
More
12-251
Han v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A087 481 101
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of July, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 CHUNZI HAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-251
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor,
27 Assistant Director; Remi Da Rocha-
28 Afodu, Attorney, Office of
29 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 Chunzi Han, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a December 30, 2011,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the April 1, 2010, decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which pretermitted her asylum
9 application as untimely, and in the alternative, denied her
10 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) for a lack of
12 credibility. In re Chunzi Han, No. A087 481 101 (B.I.A.
13 Dec. 30, 2011), aff’g No. A087 481 101 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.
14 Apr. 1, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
16 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
17 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
18 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia
20 Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per
21 curiam). For asylum applications such as Han’s, governed by
22 the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of
23 the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
2
1 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and
2 inconsistencies in her statements and record evidence,
3 without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the
4 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
5 In finding Han not credible, the agency reasonably
6 relied in part on her demeanor, noting her long pauses
7 before answering certain questions. See Zhou Yun Zhang v.
8 INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2004), overruled on other
9 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
494 F.3d
10 296 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). The IJ’s demeanor finding was
11 further supported by specific examples of discrepancies in
12 the record. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453
13 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). In this regard, the agency
14 reasonably found that Han’s testimony that she had not
15 applied for a U.S. entry visa prior to her alleged arrival
16 in the United States in April 2008 was inconsistent with
17 record evidence indicating that she had in fact applied for
18 such a visa in September 2007. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
19 167; see also Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.
20 2007).
21 Additionally, the agency reasonably found that Han
22 testified inconsistently with regard to the dates she sent
3
1 away a North Korean refugee whom she had hired to work at
2 her restaurant in China and whom authorities had discovered.
3 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Contrary to her
4 contention, Han was put on notice of this inconsistency
5 prior to the close of her case before the IJ. See Ming Shi
6 Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111, 125 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Finally, because Han does not challenge the IJ’s
8 finding that she failed to adequately corroborate her claim
9 with reliable evidence, it stands as a valid basis for the
10 agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu Li
11 v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008); Biao Yang v.
12 Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
13 Thus, given the absence of corroborating evidence, as well
14 as the discrepancies and demeanor finding, we find no error
15 in the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal,
16 and CAT relief on credibility grounds. See Paul v.
17 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We do not
18 reach the agency’s pretermission of Han’s asylum application
19 as untimely because its alternative adverse credibility
20 determination is dispositive of that claim.
21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
