Filed: Feb. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-1805-ag Zhou v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A098 814 881 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 T
Summary: 09-1805-ag Zhou v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A098 814 881 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 TH..
More
09-1805-ag
Zhou v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A098 814 881
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 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 QIANG ZHOU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1805-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Civil Division; Blair T.
27 O’Connor, Assistant Director; Samia
28 Naseem, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 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 Qiang Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 2, 2009 order of
7 the BIA, affirming the July 30, 2007 decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, which denied Zhou's
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiang
11 Zhou, No. A098 814 881 (B.I.A. Apr. 2, 2009), aff’g No. A098
12 814 881 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 30, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of this case.
15 We review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See
16 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
18 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 agency’s adverse
22 credibility determination. See
Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95.
23 That determination was based on: (1)inconsistencies
2
1 regarding the date Zhou was purportedly fired from his job
2 at the government-owned factory; (2) inconsistencies in the
3 date Zhou claimed to have traveled to Beijing to ask the
4 government to reinstate his employment at the factory; and
5 (3) Zhou’s inconsistent testimony with regard to who paid
6 the fine to secure his release from detention. The agency
7 did not err in declining to credit the explanations Zhou
8 offered for these discrepancies. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
9 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005). Each of these findings was a
10 valid basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
11 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
12 Because the only evidence of a threat to Zhou’s life or
13 freedom depended on his credibility, the agency’s adverse
14 credibility determination was fatal to his application for
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
16 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the
19 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25
3
