Filed: Sep. 09, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-2930-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Rohan, IJ A094 915 837 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: 09-2930-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Rohan, IJ A094 915 837 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
09-2930-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Rohan, IJ
A094 915 837
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 9 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YONG BIN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2930-ag
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Waisim M. Cheung, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; W. Daniel Shieh,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Washington
31 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Yong Bin Chen, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of the June 11, 2009 order of the BIA affirming
7 the September 26, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
8 Patricia A. Rohan denying his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Bin Chen, No. A094 915
11 837 (B.I.A. June 11, 2009), aff’g No. A094 915 837 (Immigr.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 26, 2007). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’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); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513
20 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
22 credibility determination. As a preliminary matter, Chen
2
1 does not challenge the IJ’s findings that: (1) he failed to
2 offer reasonably available corroborating evidence; and (2)
3 he provided inconsistent testimony regarding whether he was
4 baptized at an official “patriotic” church. Rather, Chen
5 incorrectly argues that “the BIA decision merely cited [his]
6 lack of detailed reference [to] the two arrest/detention
7 incidents in his asylum statement as the only basis for its
8 adverse credibility determination.” Pet’r’s Br. 6. To the
9 contrary, the BIA “adopt[ed] and affirm[ed]” the IJ’s
10 decision, noting Chen’s “changing responses when questioned
11 about implausibilities” and “lack of reasonably available
12 corroborating evidence.” Chen has therefore waived any
13 challenge to these findings, and they stand as valid bases
14 for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
15 Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 With respect to the finding Chen does challenge, the
17 BIA reasonably found that his omission of his 2004 and 2006
18 detentions from his asylum application undermined his
19 credibility. This omission was significant because: (1) the
20 detentions were the central basis for his claim of past
21 persecution, rather than details to be fleshed out during
22 his testimony; and (2) he prepared his application with the
3
1 assistance of an attorney. Under the REAL ID Act, “an IJ
2 may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an
3 adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality
4 of the circumstances’ establishes that the asylum applicant
5 is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167
6 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
7 Thus, Chen’s omission of his detentions, one of which
8 allegedly lasted for ten days with minimal food, was a
9 proper basis for the agency’s adverse credibility
10 determination. Furthermore, the BIA did not err in
11 rejecting Chen’s explanation that he did not include the
12 detentions in his asylum application because he planned to
13 supplement the application in light of the fact that he
14 included a supplemental statement with the application at
15 the time of filing. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77,
16 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (the agency need not credit an
17 applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless
18 those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to
19 do so).
20 Ultimately, the agency’s credibility determination was
21 supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Therefore,
4
1 it did not err in denying Chen’s application for asylum and
2 withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
3 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Chen does not challenge the agency’s
4 denial of CAT relief.
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
5
