Filed: Mar. 10, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 09-1970-ag Wang-Zhang v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A094 797 923 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
Summary: 09-1970-ag Wang-Zhang v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A094 797 923 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 ..
More
09-1970-ag
Wang-Zhang v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A094 797 923
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 10 th day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HUI ZHEN WANG-ZHANG, ALSO KNOWN AS
14 HUI ZHEN WANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-1970-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates,
25 P.C., New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
29 Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior
30 Litigation Counsel, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division; Heather S. Navarro, Law
3 Clerk, United States Department of
4 Justice, Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Hui Zhen Wang-Zhang, a native and citizen of
11 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 14,
12 2009, order of the BIA affirming the June 14, 2007, decision
13 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying her
14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hui
16 Zhen Wang-Zhang, No. A094 797 923 (B.I.A. Apr. 14, 2009),
17 aff’g No. A094 797 923 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 14, 2007).
18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history of this case.
20 We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the
21 BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.
22 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin
24 v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
25 Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse
2
1 credibility determination. The IJ found Wang-Zhang not
2 credible because: (1) although she testified that she was
3 required to report to the public security bureau on three to
4 four occasions, neither her asylum application nor her
5 mother’s letter made any such assertion; (2) although she
6 testified that the police came to her home to ensure she was
7 not practicing Christianity, her asylum application
8 contained no such allegation; and (3) her testimony that her
9 parents were able to continue practicing Christianity
10 despite continued police visits to her home was implausible.
11 Wang-Zhang does not challenge these latter two
12 discrepancies, which stand as valid bases for the IJ’s
13 adverse credibility determination. See Biao Yang v.
14 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 1
15 Wang-Zhang argues that she adequately explained the
16 discrepancy regarding whether she reported to the public
17 security bureau. Although she asserts that the
18 inconsistency was “nothing more than a misunderstanding in
19 the semantics of the questions posed by the attorney for the
1
The IJ also noted other inconsistencies in Wang-
Zhang's testimony. Because he found these discrepancies
"not significant," and appears not to have based his
credibility finding on them, we regard them as immaterial
for purposes of this petition.
3
1 Department of Homeland Security,” a reasonable factfinder
2 would not have been compelled to credit this explanation.
3 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005);
4 see also Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 167-68 (2d Cir.
5 2007).
6 In light of Wang-Zhang’s inconsistent and implausible
7 testimony, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
8 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
10 Inasmuch as Wang-Zhang was unable to meet her burden for
11 asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden
12 required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales,
13
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 Although Wang-Zhang sets forth the standard for CAT
15 relief in her brief before this Court, she does not
16 challenge the basis of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief – that
17 she did not testify that she would be subject to anything
18 amounting to torture – or otherwise argue that any evidence
19 established a likelihood of torture upon return to China.
20 Accordingly, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT
21 relief should be deemed waived. See Yueqing Zhang v.
22 Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
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
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
9
5
