Filed: Feb. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-1628 Huang v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A079 682 711 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: 11-1628 Huang v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A079 682 711 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
11-1628
Huang v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A079 682 711
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 8th day of February, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _________________________________________
13
14 MEI YUN HUANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-1628
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Mei Yun Huang, pro se, New York, N.Y.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
27 Leslie M. McKay, Assistant Director;
28 Lori B. Warlick, Trial Attorney, United
29 States Department of Justice,
30 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Mei Yun Huang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 25, 2011,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the November 10, 2008, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris denying her
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mei Yun
11 Huang, No. A079 682 7111 (B.I.A. March 25, 2011), aff’g No.
12 A079 682 711 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 10, 2008). We assume
13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
22 credibility determination. The agency cited specific
2
1 examples: Huang’s testimony was internally inconsistent with
2 respect to the date of her second arrest for attending an
3 underground church and with respect to the number of times she
4 reported to the police after her first arrest (twice or “six
5 to seven times”).
6 Huang argues that the adverse credibility determination
7 was based on conjecture and unfair questioning about matters
8 beyond her knowledge and about ancillary issues. However, the
9 BIA ruled that, even absent these other discrepancies and
10 inconsistencies, the inconsistencies regarding the date of her
11 second arrest and the number of times she reported to the
12 police were sufficient.
13 Further, we afford particular deference to the IJ’s
14 observations of Huang’s demeanor during her testimony. See
15 Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2004),
16 overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
17 Justice,
494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
18 Huang also argues that she fears future persecution on
19 the basis of a pattern and practice of persecuting Christians
20 in China. But since she did not raise that claim before the
21 BIA, we deem it unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007).
3
1 Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying Huang’s
2 application for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief,
3 as those claims were all based on the same factual predicate.
4 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 Although the IJ’s ruling that Huang had not satisfied her
6 burden of proof on the issue of whether she is a Christian is
7 dubious, the claim of a fear of religious persecution was
8 ultimately rejected on the ground that the evidence did not
9 show a pattern of religious persecution of Protestants. That
10 ultimate ruling was not erroneous.
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
18 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
4
