Filed: Feb. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2288 Jin v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A088 530 621 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 NOTATI
Summary: 14-2288 Jin v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A088 530 621 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..
More
14-2288
Jin v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A088 530 621
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 2nd day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 HUA JIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-2288
18 NAC
19
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Flushing, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Melissa
29 Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation
1 Counsel; Jessica A. Dawgert, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States Department
4 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 Hua Jin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
11 China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014, decision of the BIA
12 affirming the September 19, 2012, decision of an Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”), denying her application for asylum, withholding
14 of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against
15 Torture (“CAT”). In re Hua Jin, No. A088 530 621 (B.I.A. June
16 2, 2014), aff’g No. A088 530 621 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sep. 19,
17 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
18 facts and procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
20 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
21 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
23 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510,
24 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 For asylum applications like Jin’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
3 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on
4 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
5 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies
6 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
8 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
9 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a
10 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)
11 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
12 adverse credibility determination.
13 The agency relied on multiple inconsistencies in finding
14 Jin not credible. For example, the agency reasonably relied
15 on an inconsistency regarding when Jin was arrested in China:
16 on June 8, 2005, or June 8, 2006. The agency was not required
17 to credit her explanation that she was nervous. See Majidi v.
18 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the
19 agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
20 inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would compel
21 a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
3
1 The agency also reasonably relied on an inconsistency
2 regarding Jin’s reporting to police following her arrest.
3 Jin’s testimony that she reported to the police only twice
4 during the relevant time period, conflicted with her testimony
5 that she was forced to report about “once every other month”
6 between her 2005 arrest and her August 2006 departure from
7 China.
8 Jin also testified inconsistently regarding where she had
9 lived in the United States. She testified that she only lived
10 in New York between 2008 and 2011, but her documentary evidence
11 showed that she had also lived in Illinois during that time
12 period. The agency was not compelled to credit her explanation
13 that she only lived in Illinois for a short time. See id. The
14 agency also reasonably relied on Jin’s internally inconsistent
15 testimony regarding the dates that she allegedly wrote and
16 submitted articles for the Chinese Democratic Party.
17 Moreover, her testimony regarding when an article was written
18 and published was inconsistent with a copy of that article.
4
1 These inconsistencies supported the agency’s credibility
2 determination.1
3 Having questioned Jin’s credibility, the agency did not err
4 in relying further on her failure to provide certain available
5 evidence corroborating her claim. An applicant’s failure to
6 corroborate testimony may bear on credibility, either because
7 the absence of particular corroborating evidence is viewed as
8 suspicious, or because the absence of corroboration in general
9 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has
10 already been called into question. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
11 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
12 The agency reasonably relied on Jin’s failure to provide
13 corroborating evidence from her husband, who Jin stated was
14 aware of her political activities in the United States. Her
15 explanations were insufficient to establish that she was unable
16 to seek testimony or an affidavit from her husband, who, as a
17 potential derivative beneficiary, had an incentive to testify.
18 See Yan Juan Chen v. Holder,
658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011)
1
While the agency erred in finding inconsistencies regarding
whether police visited Jin’s father in China in February 2008,
remand would be futile because the other findings provide
substantial evidence for the adverse credibility
determination. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d
Cir. 2007).
5
1 (noting that the husband of an alien had “every incentive to
2 testify on her behalf because, to the extent his testimony
3 supported her application, it would inure to his benefit”).
4 The agency also reasonably determined that Jin should have
5 produced copies of the articles that she allegedly authored.
6 Finally, the agency reasonably gave diminished weight to
7 the letters from Jin’s father because they were prepared for
8 her case and her father was not subject to cross-examination.
9 Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010),
10 over’d on other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d
11 130, 133-38 (2d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the agency did not
12 err in determining that Jin failed to corroborate her claim.
13 See, e.g., Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 516, 519 (B.I.A.
14 2015) (“[R]egardless of whether an applicant is deemed
15 credible, he has the burden to corroborate the material elements
16 of the claim where the evidence is reasonably obtainable,
17 without advance notice from the [IJ].”).
18 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings,
19 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
20 determination. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse
21 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
6
1 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as the claims were based
2 on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
3 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
6 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
7 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
8 is DISMISSED as moot.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
