Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-4528 Li v. Holder BIA Segal, IJ A200 751 305 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 NOTATIO
Summary: 13-4528 Li v. Holder BIA Segal, IJ A200 751 305 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..
More
13-4528
Li v. Holder
BIA
Segal, IJ
A200 751 305
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 December, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZU YONG LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-4528
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Emily Anne Radford,
27 Assistant Director; John W.
28 Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United 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 Petitioner Zu Yong Li, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of a November 5, 2013 order of the BIA
7 affirming the November 2, 2011 decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. In re Zu Yong Li,
10 No. A200 751 305 (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2013), aff’g No. A200 751
11 305 (Immig. Ct. New York City Nov. 2, 2011). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 the IJ’s decision, including the portions not explicitly
16 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
17 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
18 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
19 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
21 such as Li’s, the IJ may, considering the totality of the
22 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
2
1 applicant’s demeanor, candor, or responsiveness, and
2 inconsistencies in his statements and other 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); see Xiu
5 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-65. Here, the totality of the
6 circumstances, including the inconsistency in and
7 implausibility of Li’s testimony and his non-responsiveness,
8 support the IJ’s credibility determination.
9 The IJ reasonably found Li’s testimony inconsistent. Li
10 testified multiple times that when Chinese authorities
11 interrogated him, he told them the names of his fellow house
12 church members and their addresses. In his personal
13 statement, however, Li asserted that he did not provide
14 names and contact information. The IJ considered Li’s
15 explanation for the inconsistency—that he did not remember
16 whether he provided names or not—and found it unpersuasive,
17 particularly given its significance. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
18
430 F.3d 77, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2005). This inconsistency
19 provides substantial support for the IJ’s adverse
20 credibility determination because it directly relates to the
21 one significant instance of persecution that Li alleges. See
22 Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
446 F.3d 289, 295
3
1 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam); cf. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
2 166 n.3.
3 The IJ also reasonably found Li’s testimony implausible
4 and unresponsive. During direct examination, Li was asked
5 why the police beat him after he cooperated with them, and
6 Li stated that they asked him about his faith in Jesus. An
7 IJ is permitted to evaluate the “inherent plausibility” of
8 an applicant’s claim in making her credibility
9 determination. Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 168 (quoting 8
10 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
11 Although the agency did not explicitly rely on or
12 consider Li’s corroborating evidence, it was not required to
13 do so. Zhi Yun Gao v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir.
14 2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315,
15 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). Li fails to identify any specific
16 evidence the agency should have considered, or to explain
17 how it would have independently verified his inconsistent
18 testimony. Moreover, the BIA was not required to credit
19 the explanation for inconsistent testimony outlined in Li’s
20 affidavit, particularly because he was given ample
21 opportunity to present that explanation to the IJ and did
22 not do so.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
4
1 Given Li’s inconsistency, lack of plausibility, and
2 non-responsiveness, substantial evidence supports the
3 agency’s adverse credibility determination, which provided
4 an adequate basis for denying Li asylum, withholding of
5 removal, and CAT relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
6 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444
7 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is
11 VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
5
