Filed: Nov. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-3196 Shi v. Holder BIA Christensen, IJ A201 126 207 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
Summary: 13-3196 Shi v. Holder BIA Christensen, IJ A201 126 207 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 N..
More
13-3196
Shi v. Holder
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 126 207
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 13th day of November, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 RUI JUN SHI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3196
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Rui Jun Shi, pro se, Flushing, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
28 Director; Catherine B. Bye, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, U.S. Department of
31 Justice, 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 Petitioner Rui Jun Shi, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 6,
7 2013, decision of the BIA, affirming the January 30, 2012,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse B. Christensen,
9 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Rui Jun Shi, No. A201 126 207 (B.I.A. Aug. 6, 2013),
12 aff’g No. A201 126 207 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2012).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We
19 review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse
20 credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence
21 standard, treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable
22 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
2
1 contrary.’” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d
2 Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
3 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
4 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
5 demeanor” of an asylum applicant and “the internal
6 consistency” of the applicant’s statements, “without regard
7 to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes
8 to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
11 that Shi was not credible.
12 The agency reasonably relied on Shi’s demeanor, noting
13 that his testimony was unresponsive at times and gave the
14 impression that he was testifying from a script. See
15 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
16
430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is
17 supported by the hearing transcript.
18 The agency’s demeanor finding is further bolstered by
19 inconsistencies and implausibilities in the record regarding
20 Shi’s actions after he purportedly escaped detention at a
21 family planning facility. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 166
22 n.3; see also Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 63, 66-68 &
23 n.2 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Shi and his family
3
1 asserted that he had to fearfully hide in constant danger
2 after his June 2009 escape until his March 2010 arrival in
3 the United States, while he admitted that he used his own
4 passport to take two international vacations during that
5 time, including a fifteen day sightseeing trip to the United
6 States, returning to hide at his aunt’s house in China on
7 both occasions.
8 Having questioned Shi’s credibility, the agency
9 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain
10 evidence corroborating his claim or rehabilitating his
11 testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
12 Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Furthermore, the IJ was not
13 required to make a finding as to the availability of such
14 evidence before relying on Shi’s lack of corroboration. See
15 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d
16 Cir. 2006).
17 Given the agency’s findings regarding Shi’s demeanor
18 and the implausibility and lack of corroboration for his
19 testimony, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
20 supported by substantial evidence. This determination is
21 dispositive of Shi’s claims for asylum, withholding of
22 removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
23 see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
7
8
5
