Filed: Mar. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-4458-ag Xu v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A078 854 006 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: 10-4458-ag Xu v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A078 854 006 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
10-4458-ag
Xu v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A078 854 006
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 29th day of March, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 LI HAN XU, ALSO KNOWN AS SANDJAJA
14 HANDRYANTO,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-4458-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, Moslemi and Associates,
25 Inc., New York, N.Y.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Russell J.E. Verby, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; John D.
30 Williams, 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 Li Han Xu, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
10 of an October 22, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the
11 February 23, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
12 Steven R. Abrams, which denied Xu’s application for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Han Xu, No. A078 854 006
15 (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 2010), aff’g No. A078 854 006 (Immig. Ct.
16 N.Y. City Feb. 23, 2009). We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
18 in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
21 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
22 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519
24 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110
25 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 The agency reasonably relied on the inconsistency
2 between Xu’s hearing testimony and his airport interview in
3 finding him not credible. Specifically, Xu’s asylum claim
4 was based on his hearing testimony that he had two children,
5 but he stated in his airport interview that he had only one
6 child. See Dong v. Ashcroft, 406 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.
7 2005) (holding that an IJ may base an adverse credibility
8 determination on discrepancies that go to “the heart of
9 [petitioner’s] asylum claim” (internal quotation marks
10 omitted)); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 179-80
11 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that this Court examines record of
12 airport interview to ensure that it represents a
13 “sufficiently accurate record” of asylum applicant’s
14 statements to merit consideration in determining whether
15 applicant is credible). The agency did not err in rejecting
16 his explanations that his airport-interview statement was
17 “not complete” because he had been “quite nervous” and
18 because his interpreter had communicated with him by
19 telephone. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
20 Cir. 2005) (concluding that agency need not credit asylum
21 applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless
22 those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to
3
1 do so); see also Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 398
2 n.6 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that asylum applicant’s “mere
3 recitation that he was nervous or felt pressured during an
4 airport interview will not automatically prevent” agency
5 from relying on interview as long as agency acknowledges and
6 evaluates this explanation).
7 The adverse credibility determination was further
8 supported by the agency’s finding that, in the six years
9 since his last hearing, Xu failed to provide any additional
10 evidence to corroborate the existence of his second child.
11 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)
12 (holding asylum applicant’s failure to corroborate his
13 testimony may bear on his credibility where “the absence of
14 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
15 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
16 question”). Accordingly, given the lack of corroborating
17 evidence to rehabilitate Xu’s inconsistent statements as to
18 how many children he has and the fact that this issue is
19 central to Xu’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports
20 the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
21 As the existence of his second child is necessary to
22 both Xu’s claims of past persecution and his fear of future
4
1 persecution, the credibility determination is dispositive
2 and we do not address Xu’s additional arguments.
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
5
