Filed: Jan. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-3532-ag Zhang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A97 663 664 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 N
Summary: 08-3532-ag Zhang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A97 663 664 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..
More
08-3532-ag
Zhang v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A97 663 664
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 26 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HUI QIN ZHANG, aka QIN HUI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-3532-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1
19 Respondent.
20 _______________________________________
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Hui Qin Zhang, pro se, New York, New
23 York.
24
1
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: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant
2 Attorney General, Janice K. Redfern,
3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay
4 B. Glauner, Trial Attorney, Office
5 of 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 Hui Qin Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s
14 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 17, 2008 order of
15 the BIA, affirming the January 24, 2006 decision of
16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied her
17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hui Qin
19 Zhang, No. A97 663 664 (B.I.A. June 17, 2008), aff’g No. A97
20 663 664 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 24, 2006). We assume the
21 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
22 procedural history of this case.
23 When the BIA agrees with the IJ’s adverse credibility
24 finding and emphasizes certain bases in support thereof as
25 well as supplements it with its own reasoning, we review the
26 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.
27 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Yun-Zui Guan v.
2
1 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the
2 agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility
3 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard.
4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey,
5
519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). Because Zhang proceeds pro
6 se before the Court, we construe her brief broadly to raise
7 the strongest arguments that it suggests. See Weixel v.
8 Board of Educ.,
287 F.3d 138, 145-46 (2d Cir. 2002).
9 As an initial matter, because Zhang failed to raise
10 before this Court any challenge to the agency’s denial of
11 her CAT claim, we deem any such argument waived. See
12 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d
13 Cir. 2005).
14 As to Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
15 we find that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
16 adverse credibility determination. In her brief to this
17 Court, Zhang fails to challenge all but one of the bases of
18 the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Because Zhang has
19 waived any challenge to these findings, they stand as proper
20 bases for the IJ’s credibility determination. 2 See
id.
2
While we are mindful that Zhang appears before the
Court pro se, even construing broadly her arguments, we
cannot find that she has offered any challenge as to
3
1 As to the single finding Zhang does challenge, we
2 conclude that it is supported by substantial evidence. The
3 IJ reasonably found that Zhang’s testimony that her
4 neighbors intervened when Zhang’s family was attacked by her
5 fiancee and a group of men was inconsistent with her
6 sister’s letter, which stated that no one came to assist the
7 family during the attack. Zhang contends that this
8 inconsistency is due to an error in translation from the
9 Fujian dialect to Standard Chinese to English, and that,
10 while Zhang’s sister states in her letter “nobody came to
11 stop them,” she “actually means nobody can stop them.”
12 However, this is a different explanation than she gave
13 before the BIA. Accordingly, we will not consider it. See
14 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
15 In sum, we find no basis upon which to disturb the IJ’s
16 conclusion that Zhang was not credible. See Xiu Xia Lin v.
17 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2008). Therefore,
18 the IJ properly denied Zhang’s application for asylum and
19 withholding of removal because the only evidence that she
20 would be persecuted depended on her credibility. See Paul
21 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
these findings. Cf. Weixel, 287 F.3d at 145-46.
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the
3 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
8
5
