Filed: Feb. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-1642-ag Jiang-Zheng v. Holder BIA Van Wyke, IJ A098 717 922 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 (W
Summary: 09-1642-ag Jiang-Zheng v. Holder BIA Van Wyke, IJ A098 717 922 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 (WI..
More
09-1642-ag
Jiang-Zheng v. Holder
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A098 717 922
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 19 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 _______________________________________
13
14 RONG JIANG-ZHENG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-1642-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Civil Division; Linda S.
28 Wernery, Assistant Director; Kerry
29 A. Monaco, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Rong Jiang-Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 26, 2009 order of
7 the BIA, affirming the November 8, 2007 decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) William Van Wyke, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rong
11 Jiang-Zheng, No. A098 717 922 (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), aff’g
12 No. A098 717 922 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 8, 2007). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 90,
20 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
22 credibility determination. See
Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95.
2
1 First, the IJ reasonably relied on Jiang-Zheng’s demeanor in
2 concluding that his testimony was “entirely unconvincing.”
3 The IJ noted that Jian-Zheng was unresponsive to the
4 questions posed, often hedged in his answers, and displayed
5 reactions that were “inappropriate” under the circumstances.
6 Because the “[IJ’s] ability to observe the witness’s
7 demeanor places [him] in the best position to evaluate
8 [credibility],” Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
9 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2005), we defer to the IJ’s assessment
10 that Jiang-Zheng’s overall demeanor undermined his
11 credibility. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1
12 (2d Cir. 2005).
13 Second, the IJ reasonably relied on several
14 inconsistencies between Jiang-Zheng’s testimony and the
15 documents of record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
16 Jiang-Zheng testified that Wu Jiang, a friend who introduced
17 him to Christianity, was not present on the day Jiang-Zheng
18 was arrested. However, Wu Jiang states in a letter that
19 “[w]e had also been arrested, beaten and held in the Police
20 Station because of our affiliation with the church.” In
21 addition, Jiang-Zheng gave discrepant testimony regarding
22 the ministers at the two churches he purportedly attended in
3
1 the United States. Although Jiang-Zheng offered
2 explanations for these inconsistencies, no reasonable fact-
3 finder would be compelled to credit them. Majidi, 430 F.3d
4 at 81. Thus, the IJ was entitled to rely on these
5 discrepancies in finding Jiang-Zheng not credible. Tu Lin
6 v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Finally, having called Jiang-Zheng’s credibility into
8 question, the IJ reasonably relied upon the absence of
9 reliable evidence corroborating Jiang-Zheng’s alleged
10 practice of Christianity in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268,
12 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 Ultimately, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
14 was supported by substantial evidence. See Shu Wen Sun v.
15 BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, because Jiang-
16 Zheng’s entire claim for relief was based on his fear of
17 harm on account of his Christian faith, the agency’s denial
18 of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
19 CAT relief was proper. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
20 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Wu Biao Chen v. INS,
344 F.3d 272, 275
21 (2d Cir. 2003).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
5
