Filed: Aug. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-4910 Jiang v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A087 462 759 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
Summary: 11-4910 Jiang v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A087 462 759 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 ..
More
11-4910
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A087 462 759
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 New
4 York, on the 21st day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 NA JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4910
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Moslemi &
24 Associates, Inc., New York, N.Y.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Tiffany L.
29 Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, 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 Na Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 28, 2011,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the March 10, 2010, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier E. Balasquide denying her
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Na Jiang,
11 No. A087 462 759 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2011), aff’g No. A087 462
12 759 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 10, 2010). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
14 history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v.
17 DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
20 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 For asylum applications, like Jiang’s, that are governed
22 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality
23 of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
2
1 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of her account, and
2 inconsistencies in her or her witness’s statements, without
3 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
4 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
5 at 163-64. Further, under the REAL ID Act, this Court
6 “defer[s] to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from
7 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
8 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
9 ruling.” Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
10 In this case, as the agency reasonably found, Jiang’s
11 testimony was internally inconsistent in that she provided two
12 different dates for her arrest in China. As the agency noted,
13 Jiang’s testimony also was internally inconsistent and
14 inconsistent with the testimony of her witness, Pastor Qi,
15 regarding when the pastor had last seen Jiang at church.
16 Further, the agency reasonably found that Jiang’s testimony
17 was inconsistent with Pastor Qi’s testimony regarding whether
18 Pastor Qi had required her to sign a letter before agreeing
19 to testify at Jiang’s hearing. The agency reasonably declined
20 to accept Jiang’s explanations for the inconsistencies because
21 “[a] petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
22 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;
3
1 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
2 compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
3 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original) (internal
4 quotation marks omitted).
5 Given the inconsistencies identified by the agency,
6 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
7 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
8
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Accordingly, the agency did not err in
9 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all
10 of the claims were based on the same factual predicate for
11 which Jiang was found not credible. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
12 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
15 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
17 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
4
