Filed: Oct. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-5096-ag Qu v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A099 027 795 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: 10-5096-ag Qu v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A099 027 795 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
10-5096-ag
Qu v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A099 027 795
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 25th day of October, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HA LE QU, AKA HONG SHAN JIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-5096-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Peter Lobel, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; Richard M.
27 Evans, Assistant Director, Office of
28 Immigration Litigation; Virginia
29 Lum, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Ha le Qu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
10 of China, seeks review of a November 22, 2010, order of the
11 BIA, affirming the November 12, 2008, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied Qu’s
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re He Le
15 Qu, No. A099 027 795 (B.I.A. Nov. 22, 2010), aff’g No. A099
16 027 795 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 12, 2008). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history of this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision. See Xue
21 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
22 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Yanqin
24 Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 For asylum applications, such as this one, governed by
2 the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of
3 the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
4 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his or her
5 account, and inconsistencies in his or her statements,
6 without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the
7 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006).
8 Analyzed under the REAL ID Act, substantial evidence
9 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
10 In finding Qu not credible, the agency reasonably
11 relied in part on his demeanor, finding that Qu’s testimony
12 was often evasive, vague, and non-responsive. See Majidi v.
13 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s
14 demeanor findings were supported further by specific
15 examples of Qu’s contradictory testimony, particularly with
16 respect to the location of the underground church services
17 and the time period when Qu began attending services after
18 arriving in the United States. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
19
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). A reasonable fact finder
20 would not be compelled to credit Qu’s explanations for these
21 inconsistencies.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80–81. Furthermore,
22 the IJ reasonably relied on Qu’s failure to present adequate
3
1 corroboration to support his claims that he attended an
2 underground church in China and that he started attending
3 church in the United States shortly after his arrival in
4 1999. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.
5 2007) (per curiam) (holding that the agency may rely on a
6 lack of corroborative evidence where an applicant’s
7 testimony is not otherwise credible).
8 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not
9 be compelled to conclude to the contrary, the IJ’s adverse
10 credibility determination was supported by substantial
11 evidence. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 165–66. The agency’s
12 denial of Qu’s application for asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and CAT relief was not in error as all three claims
14 shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
15
444 F.3d 148, 155–56 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of
16 removal); Xue Hong
Yang, 426 F.3d at 523 (CAT).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
5
