Filed: Sep. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-2711-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Morace, IJ A089 008 816 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
Summary: 10-2711-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Morace, IJ A089 008 816 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..
More
10-2711-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A089 008 816
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 9th day of September, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MAN LI CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-2711-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Kathryn M.
29 McKinney, 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 Petitioner Man Li Chen, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of the June 9, 2010, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the June 25, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Philip Morace denying his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Man Li Chen, No. A089 008
11 816 (B.I.A. June 9, 2010), aff’g No. A089 008 816 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City June 25, 2008). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 of this case.
15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v.
16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007).
17 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
18 See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
20 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529
21 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). We “defer to an IJ’s
22 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
2
1 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
2 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia
3 Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. For asylum applications governed
4 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
5 totality of the circumstances, . . . base a credibility
6 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
7 the applicant . . ., the consistency between the applicant’s
8 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . without
9 regard to whether an inconsistency goes to the heart of the
10 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
11
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
12 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
13 credibility determination. In finding Chen not credible,
14 the IJ reasonably relied in part on Chen’s confused demeanor
15 while testifying during cross-examination. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d
17 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s demeanor finding was
18 further supported by specific examples of contradictory
19 testimony. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453
20 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, as the IJ found, Chen
21 testified inconsistently regarding the length of time he
22 remained in hiding following his release from detention.
3
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534
2 F.3d at 166-67. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would
3 not be compelled to credit Chen’s explanations for his
4 inconsistent statements. See
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
5 Thus, we find no error in the IJ’s denial of Chen’s
6 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
7 relief on credibility grounds. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
8 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21
4
