Filed: Mar. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-1083-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Lamb, IJ A097 663 623 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
Summary: 09-1083-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Lamb, IJ A097 663 623 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..
More
09-1083-ag
Wang v. Holder
BIA
Lamb, IJ
A097 663 623
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 4 th day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 YA LING L. WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1083-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Andrew N.
28 O’Malley, 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 Ya Ling L. Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 13, 2009, order
7 of the BIA affirming the March 8, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb, which denied
9 Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Ya Ling L. Wang, No. A097 663 623 (BIA Mar. 13, 2009), aff’g
12 No. A097 663 623 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 2007). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
20 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
22 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at
2
1 167. The IJ found Wang not credible based on: (1) her
2 inconsistent testimony regarding where police allegedly
3 found a list of persons, including Wang, who distributed
4 Falun Gong flyers; (2) her hesitation and confusion in
5 answering questions throughout her testimony; and (3) her
6 deficient corroboration of her claim that she practices
7 Falun Gong in the United States. The BIA further noted that
8 the affidavit from Wang’s father omitted Wang’s claim that
9 officials found Falun Gong materials while searching her
10 parents’ home. In her brief, Wang argues that the adverse
11 credibility determination was based on the BIA’s
12 identification of one minor omission. But this argument
13 ignores several of the IJ’s findings which stand as valid
14 bases for her adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu
15 Li v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 Moreover, the IJ reasonably declined to afford evidentiary
17 weight to the photographs Wang submitted depicting her
18 allegedly practicing Falun Gong. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
19 Dep’t Of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (holding that the weight
20 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration
21 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the IJ).
22 Finally, we defer to the IJ’s assessment of Wang’s demeanor.
3
1 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).
2 Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility
3 determination was supported by substantial evidence.
4 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B). Because
5 Wang’s claims were all based on the same factual predicate,
6 the agency’s denial of her application for asylum,
7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper. See Paul
8 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21
4
