Filed: Dec. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-4530 Yan v. Holder BIA Poczter, IJ A201 122 116 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: 13-4530 Yan v. Holder BIA Poczter, IJ A201 122 116 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
13-4530
Yan v. Holder
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A201 122 116
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 19th day of December, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YIN YAN YAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-4530
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: JP Sarmiento, Cleveland, OH.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
27 Director; Gerald M. Alexander, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of 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 Yin Yan Yan, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 14, 2013,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the January 12, 2012, decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yin Yan Yan, No.
11 A201 122 116 (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2013), aff’g No. A201 122 116
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 12, 2012). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have
16 considered 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); Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 For asylum applications like Yan’s, governed by the
22 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
23 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding
2
1 on the plausibility of an asylum applicant’s account,
2 inconsistencies in his statements, and “any inaccuracies or
3 falsehoods in such statements,” so long as they reasonably
4 support an inference that the applicant is not credible. 8
5 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
6 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). We defer “to an IJ’s
7 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
8 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
9 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia
10
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Substantial evidence supports the
11 agency’s finding that Yan was not credible because he
12 submitted documents that contained false information.
13 Yan claimed the following. He and his wife were
14 married in a traditional ceremony in 1993, but did not
15 register their marriage with authorities. They moved from
16 Houzhou, the city where they were born, to evade family
17 planning officials. Between 1994 and 2002, they had three
18 sons. In 2005, they sent their sons to live with Yan’s
19 mother in the village of Yannang, and, a few months later,
20 moved to Cheng, an adjacent village, so that they could
21 visit their sons regularly without being detected (both
22 Yannang and Cheng are located within Houzhou). In 2006, a
3
1 former classmate who worked at the police office helped Yan
2 register his sons in a household registry so that they could
3 attend school. In February 2007, Yan and his wife, who were
4 still living in Cheng, surreptitiously visited their sons in
5 Yannang. Authorities found and arrested Yan and his wife;
6 forcibly sterilized Yan’s wife; detained Yan for five days,
7 during which time they beat and starved him; and, on
8 release, fined Yan and his wife because they violated the
9 family planning policy. Yan and his wife then registered
10 their marriage in October 2007. In 2009, authorities
11 detained Yan because he had not paid the fine in full.
12 During cross examination, Yan was confronted with the
13 household registry that he had submitted, which was issued
14 in October 2006, listed him as the head of the household,
15 and stated that he was married, lived with his wife and
16 three sons in Yannang, and that his three sons had been born
17 in Houzhou City. Yan was also confronted with his
18 children’s birth certificates that he had submitted. The
19 certificates were issued in 2010, after Yan arrived in the
20 United States, and also stated that his children were born
21 in Houzhou. Yan admitted that the information in the
22 household registry and the birth certificates was false. He
4
1 explained that his former classmate had obtained the false
2 household registry for him. He did not explain, however,
3 why he submitted false documents to the IJ without
4 acknowledging them as such, nor how he obtained false birth
5 certificates for his children years after he departed China.
6 In her decision, the IJ noted that the household
7 registry and birth certificates were inconsistent with Yan’s
8 testimony, and that Yan admitted for the first time during
9 cross-examination that these documents contained false
10 information. She found Yan not credible because he
11 knowingly submitted false documents in support of his claim.
12 Because the REAL ID Act permits the agency to base an
13 adverse credibility determination on any falsehoods in an
14 applicant’s statements, regardless of whether they go to the
15 heart of his claim, a totality of the circumstances supports
16 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C.
17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
18 Because the only evidence of a threat to Yan’s life or
19 freedom depended upon his credibility, the agency’s finding
20 that he was not credible necessarily precludes success on
21 his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
22 relief. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
23 2006).
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
6
