Filed: Apr. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-1203-ag Piao v. Holder BIA Hladylwycz, IJ A088 524 661 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: 11-1203-ag Piao v. Holder BIA Hladylwycz, IJ A088 524 661 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
11-1203-ag
Piao v. Holder
BIA
Hladylwycz, IJ
A088 524 661
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 5th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YUANZHE PIAO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-1203-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
27 Assistant Director; Gladys M.
28 Steffens Guzmán, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 Civil Division, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 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 Yuanzhe Piao, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 9, 2011,
7 order of the BIA affirming the March 9, 2009, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yuanzhe Piao, No. A088 524
11 661 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2011), aff’g No. A088 524 661 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 9, 2009). 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 have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision.
17 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also, e.g., Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Although Piao challenges the agency’s pretermission of
22 his asylum application as untimely, we do not address the
2
1 issue because the agency’s alternative basis for the denial
2 of asylum, the adverse credibility determination, is
3 supported by substantial evidence.
4 The agency concluded that Piao was not credible based
5 on inconsistencies in his testimony and his asylum
6 applications. For asylum applications, such as this one,
7 governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the
8 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on
9 an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,”
10 and inconsistencies in his or her statements, without regard
11 to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
12 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
13 Piao’s asylum application stated that when he was
14 beaten he suffered a nose bleed and some bruises, while his
15 testimony about the event added the detail that he passed
16 out after being beaten. Piao challenges the agency’s
17 conclusion, inter alia, that his failure to mention that he
18 passed out was an omission which undermined his credibility.
19 In support of this argument, Piao relies on Secaida-Rosales
20 v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003), a pre-REAL ID Act
21 case which cautioned against basing adverse credibility
22 determinations on the omission of information from an asylum
3
1 application because an application is not expected to
2 constitute “a perfectly complete and comprehensive
3 recitation of an applicant’s claim.”
4 Secaida-Rosales’s holding, “that an IJ may not base an
5 adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies and
6 omissions that are ‘collateral or ancillary’ to an
7 applicant’s claims,” was abrogated by the REAL ID Act under
8 which “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission . . .
9 as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes
10 that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v.
11 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in
12 original; quoting
Secaida-Rosales, 331 F.3d at 308; 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The REAL ID Act, however, does not
14 alter whether something is an inconsistency or omission.
15 Accordingly, we consider whether Piao “would have been
16 expected to mention [that he passed out] in his asylum
17 application.” See Tu Lin v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d
18 Cir. 2006). While generally asylum applications are not
19 expected to provide details about every incident, we defer
20 to the IJ’s implicit conclusion that Piao was expected to
21 provide the detail that he passed out because he provided
22 other details about the beating he received. Thus, the
4
1 agency reasonably concluded that Piao’s failure to mention
2 this detail, in the circumstances of this case as a whole,
3 was an omission undermining his credibility.
4 The agency’s adverse credibility determination was
5 additionally supported by Piao’s inconsistent statements
6 about when he entered the United States. As the IJ noted,
7 while Piao testified that he entered the United States in
8 July 2006, his asylum applications also stated that he
9 entered in June or May 2006. Piao did not attempt to
10 explain why he stated that he entered in June 2006 and now
11 argues that he may have given an explanation for his
12 statement that he entered in May 2006 during the hearing,
13 but that the explanation was lost due to a transcription
14 error. He further argues that this transcription error has
15 resulted in a denial of due process. This argument is
16 unavailing because he does not now identify what that
17 missing explanation was and thus has not demonstrated that
18 he was prejudiced. See Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d
19 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (an alien alleging a due process
20 violation must demonstrate “cognizable prejudice”).
21
22
5
1 The adverse credibility determination was further
2 supported by Piao’s inconsistent statements about when he
3 lost his factory position. He testified and noted in the
4 written statement in support of his application that he lost
5 his position in November 2005, but in the employment history
6 section of his application indicated that he worked at the
7 factory until 2006. Piao’s argument that the agency erred
8 in relying on this inconsistency because it was minor is
9 unavailing because under the REAL ID Act the agency may rely
10 on any inconsistency. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
11 Together, these inconsistencies provide substantial
12 evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
13 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because Piao’s claims
14 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief all rely
15 on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse
16 credibility determination forecloses all relief. See Paul
17 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
20 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
21 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
22 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6
1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
7
