Filed: Jul. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 12-351 Jiang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A087 567 667 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 NOTA
Summary: 12-351 Jiang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A087 567 667 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 NOTAT..
More
12-351
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 567 667
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 22nd day of July, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YU ZHEN JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-351
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Farah Loftus, Century City,
24 California.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Kathryn
29 L. Deangelis, Trial Attorney, Office
30 of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
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 in part and DISMISSED in part.
5 Petitioner Yu Zhen Jiang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 30,
7 2011, decision of the BIA, affirming the June 22, 2010,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson
9 denying Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Yu Zhen Jiang, No. A087 567 667 (B.I.A. Dec.
12 30, 2011), aff’g No. A087 567 667 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June
13 22, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions as to Jiang’s
17 credibility “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v.
18 Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable
19 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
21 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice,
421 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2005).
2
1 For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act,
2 such as the application in this case, the agency may,
3 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a
4 credibility finding on the applicant’s demeanor, the
5 plausibility of the applicant’s account, and inconsistencies
6 in her statements and other record evidence, without regard
7 to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-
9 64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
10 credibility determination.
11 In finding Jiang not credible, the IJ reasonably relied
12 on Jiang’s demeanor, noting that her testimony was
13 unresponsive and hesitant. See 8 U.S.C.
14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d
15 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the
16 hearing transcript.
17 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is further
18 supported by specific examples of contradictory testimony.
19 See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
453 F.3d 99, 109
20 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our
21 review of observations about an applicant’s demeanor where,
22 as here, they are supported by specific examples of
3
1 inconsistent testimony.”). Indeed, the IJ reasonably found
2 discrepancies in Jiang’s statements regarding her
3 applications for birth permits and whether or not she paid a
4 family planning fine. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
5 Jiang failed to provide compelling explanations for these
6 discrepancies. See
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
7 In addition, the agency did not err in declining to
8 credit Jiang’s individualized evidence because the letters
9 she submitted were unsworn, strikingly similar, and prepared
10 by interested parties for the purpose of litigation. See
11 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d
12 Cir. 2006); see also Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
13
489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, given the IJ’s
14 demeanor finding, the record discrepancies, and lack of
15 credible corroborating evidence, we find the agency’s
16 adverse credibility determination supported by substantial
17 evidence and dispositive of Jiang’s claims for asylum and
18 withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
19 Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
20
444 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
21 Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial
22 of CAT relief because Jiang failed to challenge the denial
23 of that category of relief before the BIA. See Karaj v.
24 Gonzales,
462 F.3d 113, 119 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. As we have completed
3 our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously
4 granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
6 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
7 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
8 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
5
