Filed: Feb. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-2086-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A99 083 187 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 NO
Summary: 08-2086-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A99 083 187 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..
More
08-2086-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A99 083 187
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 11 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 QI LIN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-2086-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, *
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, NY.
23
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn,
3 Assistant Director; Imran R. Zaidi,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Qi Lin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
14 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 8, 2008 order of
15 the BIA, affirming the June 2, 2006 decision of Immigration
16 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams, which denied his application
17 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qi Lin Chen, No.
19 A99 083 187 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2008), aff’g No. A99 083 187
20 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 2, 2006). We assume the parties’
21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
22 in this case.
23 When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s conclusion that a
24 petitioner is not credible and, without rejecting any of the
25 IJ’s grounds for decision, emphasizes particular aspects of
26 that decision, this Court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s
2
1 opinions -- or more precisely, the Court reviews the IJ’s
2 decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by
3 the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d
4 Cir. 2005). For asylum applications governed by the
5 amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by
6 the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of
7 the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
8 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
9 plausibility of his or her account, and inconsistencies in
10 his or her statements, without regard to whether they go “to
11 the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
12 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
13 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
14 credibility determination. Indeed, the IJ reasonably found
15 that Chen was hesitant in answering his questions and
16 provided limited detail when so questioned. See
id. As the
17 IJ was in the best position to discern the impression
18 conveyed by Chen, we accord the IJ’s demeanor finding
19 particular deference. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77,
20 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, the agency
21 appropriately relied, in part, on the discrepancy between
22 Chen’s submission of an abortion certificate that he claimed
3
1 his wife received following an allegedly forced abortion,
2 and a U.S. Department of State report indicating that such
3 certificates are issued only for voluntary abortions. See
4 Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 263 (2d Cir. 2007).
5 Regarding the IJ’s finding that Chen failed to submit
6 sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his
7 testimony, contrary to Chen’s argument, the IJ was not
8 obligated to first identify the particular pieces of
9 missing, relevant evidence, and show that this evidence was
10 reasonably available before relying on this lack of
11 corroboration to support his adverse credibility finding.
12 See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 341
13 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that these steps are not required
14 when the applicant is not otherwise credible).
15 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not
16 be compelled to conclude to the contrary, the IJ’s adverse
17 credibility determination was supported by substantial
18 evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66
19 (2d Cir. 2008). Thus, the agency properly denied Chen’s
20 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
21 relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
22 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
5
