Filed: Sep. 16, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-609 Tan v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 794 200 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
Summary: 12-609 Tan v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 794 200 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 NOTATI..
More
12-609
Tan v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A088 794 200
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 16th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LI MING TAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-609
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Julie S.
28 Saltman, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Li Ming Tan, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 2, 2012, order
11 of the BIA, affirming the November 1, 2010, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, which denied his
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Ming
15 Tan, No. A088 794 200 (B.I.A. Feb. 2, 2012), aff’g No. A088
16 794 200 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2010). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision.
21 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,
22 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
23 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
24 v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 For asylum applications such as Tan’s, governed by the
2 REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the
3 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
4 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and
5 inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether
6 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
8 In finding Tan not credible, the agency reasonably
9 relied in part on his demeanor, finding that, rather than
10 testifying from actual experience, Tan appeared as if he
11 were telling a story that he had previously memorized but
12 could not adequately recall. See Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
13 Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s
14 demeanor findings were further supported by specific
15 examples of Tan’s inconsistent testimony. See Li Hua Lin v.
16 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). In
17 this regard, the agency reasonably found that Tan failed to
18 provide a consistent account with regard to whether he had
19 suffered any harm in China on account of his practice of
20 Falun Gong, and the number of times he was detained by
21 village committee officials on account of his Falun Gong-
22 related activities. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
3
1 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also Iouri v.
2 Ashcroft,
487 F.3d 76, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2007). Contrary to
3 Tan’s argument, the IJ did not err by failing to give him an
4 opportunity to explain these inconsistences, as the
5 inconsistent statements were dramatic, were made in response
6 to questions posed by his own attorney, and the agency’s
7 adverse credibility determination did not rest on these
8 inconsistencies alone. See Ming Shi Xue v. BIA,
439 F.3d
9 111, 125 (2d Cir.2006).
10 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that the
11 testimony of Tan’s witness and the letters from Tan’s father
12 and friend in China were inadequate to rehabilitate his
13 incredible testimony, as they were of limited probative
14 value. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
15 Cir. 2007); Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d
16 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not
18 be compelled to conclude to the contrary regarding the
19 agency’s demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration
20 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
21 supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534
22 F.3d at 165-66. The agency’s denial of Tan’s application
4
1 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was not
2 in error as all three claims shared the same factual
3 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
4 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t
5 of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2006) (CAT).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
