Filed: Oct. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-3045 Jiang v. Holder BIA Van Wyke, IJ A089 922 661 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 N
Summary: 12-3045 Jiang v. Holder BIA Van Wyke, IJ A089 922 661 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 NO..
More
12-3045
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A089 922 661
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 24th day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GUANG QING JIANG, AKA YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-3045
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, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Russell
28 J. E. Verby, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, U.S. Department of
32 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 Guang Qing Jiang, a native and citizen of
6 the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 11,
7 2012, decision of the BIA, affirming the April 25, 2011,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) William P. Van Wyke,
9 denying Jiang’s application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Guang Qing Jiang, No. A089 922 661 (B.I.A.
12 July 11, 2012), aff’g No. A089 922 661 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
13 Apr. 25, 2011). 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).
22
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 his 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 his testimony appeared
13 memorized from a script and was at times hesitant and
14 evasive when deviating from that script. See 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d
16 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the
17 hearing transcript.
18 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is
19 further supported by specific examples of inconsistencies
20 between Jiang’s testimony and other record evidence. See Li
21 Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir.
22 2006) (“We can be still more confident in our review of
3
1 observations about an applicant’s demeanor where, as here,
2 they are supported by specific examples of inconsistent
3 testimony.”). Indeed, the agency reasonably found
4 inconsistent statements regarding whether Jiang knew his
5 fellow congregants in China from school, when he was fired
6 from his job, and whether he had informed his fellow
7 congregants in the United States of the harm he had suffered
8 in the past. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Jiang
9 failed to provide compelling explanations for these
10 discrepancies. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
11 Finally, having questioned Jiang’s credibility, the
12 agency reasonably relied further on his failure to provide
13 reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
14 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). An applicant’s failure to
15 corroborate testimony may bear on credibility, either
16 because the absence of particular corroborating evidence is
17 viewed as suspicious, or because “the absence of
18 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
19 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
20 question.” Id. Here, the agency reasonably declined to
21 credit the letter from Jiang’s father regarding his claim of
22 past persecution because it was strikingly similar to
23 Jiang’s statement, and because it was prepared by an
4
1 interested witness who was not available for cross-
2 examination. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489
3 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
4 Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). In
5 addition, the agency reasonably noted that Jiang’s father’s
6 letter did not corroborate his claimed fear of future
7 persecution, and that Jiang failed to present the testimony
8 of his current pastors or fellow congregants in the United
9 States.
10 Given the lack of corroboration, as well as the
11 demeanor and inconsistency findings, the agency’s adverse
12 credibility determination is supported by substantial
13 evidence, and was dispositive of Jiang’s claims for asylum,
14 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia Lin,
15 534 F.3d at 167; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
16 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we need not reach the
17 agency’s alternative burden of proof finding.
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
23 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
6
