Filed: Mar. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-3286-ag Huang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A094 800 149 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
Summary: 09-3286-ag Huang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A094 800 149 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..
More
09-3286-ag
Huang v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A094 800 149
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 1 st day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 KAI DAN HUANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-3286-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Khaghendra Gharti-Chhetry, Chhetry &
24 Associates, P.C., New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
29 Director; Andrew Oliveira, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States Department
32 of Justice, 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 Petitioner Kai Dan Huang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 9, 2009,
7 order of the BIA affirming the October 23, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kai Dan
11 Huang, No. A094 800 149 (B.I.A. Jul. 9, 2009), aff’g No.
12 A094 800 149 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 23, 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 the
16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534
20 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
22 credibility determination. In finding Huang not credible,
23 the IJ found that: (1) although he testified that his mother
2
1 was beaten as a result of his resistance to the family
2 planning policy, neither his asylum application nor his
3 wife’s letter made any such assertion; (2) he testified
4 inconsistently regarding whether he first saw his wife at
5 their home or at the hospital following her sterilization;
6 (3) his testimony that family planning officials chased him
7 to his house even though he ran to a friend’s house was
8 inconsistent and implausible; (4) his testimony that he was
9 able to escape from five or six officials who were
10 surrounding him and holding him down was implausible; and
11 (5) his testimony that the officials did nothing to stop him
12 from leaving, yet then decided to chase him to his home, was
13 implausible. Although Huang argues that he adequately
14 explained three of these discrepancies, no reasonable
15 factfinder would have been compelled to credit his
16 explanations. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
17 Cir. 2005).
18 Huang does not challenge the remaining findings with
19 any specificity, arguing only that they were too minor to
20 support an adverse credibility determination. However, “an
21 IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an
22 adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of
23 the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is
3
1 not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (internal
2 quotation marks omitted and emphasis in original).
3 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
4 credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)
5 (iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Because Huang was
6 unable to meet his burden for asylum, he has necessarily
7 failed to meet the higher burden required for withholding of
8 removal. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
9 2006). Moreover, there is no merit to Huang’s argument that
10 the IJ erred by failing to conduct a separate analysis of
11 his CAT claim because that claim too was based on the same
12 factual predicate. See
id.
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
15 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
16 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
17 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
18 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
4
