Filed: Jan. 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4217-ag Zhang v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A098 713 549 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 NO
Summary: 09-4217-ag Zhang v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A098 713 549 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 NOT..
More
09-4217-ag
Zhang v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A098 713 549
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 31 st day of January, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIN ZHANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4217-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joan Xie, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Blair T. O’Connor,
27 Assistant Director; Claire L.
28 Workman, Trial 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 Jin Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
6 of China, seeks review of a September 17, 2009, order of the
7 BIA, affirming the January 2, 2008, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which denied her application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Zhang, No. A098
11 713 549 (B.I.A. Sept. 17, 2009), aff’g No. A098 713 549
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 2, 2008). 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 review both the
16 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
17 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting
18 Wangchuck v. DHS,
448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)). The
19 applicable standards of review are well-established. See Shu
20 Wen Sun v. BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007); Bah v.
21 Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
22 I. Fraudulent Document
23 Zhang argues that the agency’s finding, that the arrest
2
1 warrant she submitted was fraudulent, was an insufficient
2 basis for an adverse credibility determination. * We conclude
3 that the agency reasonably determined that Zhang’s submission
4 of the fraudulent document undermined the credibility of her
5 claim. Although Zhang disputes the reasoning of the consular
6 investigative report upon which the IJ based his finding that
7 the warrant was fraudulent, arguing that it is “not
8 unimaginable” that irregularities in the warrant were caused
9 by the Chinese police, we have recognized that “detailed
10 reports” from overseas State Department or immigration
11 officials regarding the authenticity of documents are highly
12 probative and often necessary for the proper adjudication of
13 an asylum claim. See Zhen Nan Lin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
14 459 F.3d 255, 270 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, the agency did
15 not err in rejecting Zhang’s explanation for the
16 irregularities in her warrant, insofar as it would not compel
17 a reasonable factfinder to accept the authenticity of the
*
Although the agency’s adverse credibility
determination is arguably not explicit, Zhang assumes
that the agency made an adverse credibility
determination, and we conclude that the agency’s
decisions, based largely on Zhang’s submission of a
fraudulent document, sufficiently constitute an adverse
credibility determination. See Zaman, 514 F.3d at 237-
38.
3
1 warrant. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.
2 2005). Although Zhang argues that she did not possess
3 firsthand knowledge of how the warrant was given to her
4 parents, her testimony reflects that she was aware of the
5 document’s questionable authenticity at the time she submitted
6 it as evidence before the IJ. The agency thus did not err in
7 drawing an adverse inference from Zhang’s submission of the
8 fraudulent warrant. See Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90, 97-
9 98 (2d Cir. 2008); Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d
10 Cir. 2007).
11 II. Lack of Corroboration
12 Having reasonably found the credibility of Zhang’s
13 testimony undermined by her submission of the fraudulent
14 arrest warrant, the agency did not err in further relying on
15 Zhang’s failure to provide corroboration of her claim. As the
16 agency noted, the U.S. Department of State’s Profile of Asylum
17 Claims and Country Conditions in China for 2007 (“Country
18 Report”) does not mention Bailiang Jaiao – the form of
19 Buddhism of which Zhang alleged she was a member, causing her
20 to be sought by the Chinese authorities. See Biao Yang v.
21 Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, the
22 agency reasonably found that the information in the Country
4
1 Report that a Buddhist group called “the Way of the Goddess of
2 Mercy (Guangyin Famen)” was considered a cult by Chinese
3 authorities and that six group members were sentenced to up to
4 four years in prison in 2005, was insufficient corroboration
5 of Zhang’s claim, even assuming that Bailiang Jaiao was a part
6 of this group. See id. Contrary to Zhang’s arguments, the
7 agency did not err in failing to address specifically the
8 statement in the Country Reports that the Chinese authorities
9 used the term “cult” to stigmatize various groups, as that
10 statement appears in the Country Report’s discussion of Falun
11 Gong and related “qigong” groups, and is not included in the
12 section of the report discussing Buddhist groups. See Wei
13 Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006). Finally,
14 because Zhang’s withholding of removal and CAT claims were
15 based on the same facts as her asylum claim, the agency’s
16 analysis sufficiently addressed all three forms of relief.
17 See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue
18 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.
19 2005).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
22 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
23 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
5
1 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
2 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
3 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
4 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
6
