Filed: Aug. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-2452 Guang-Xiong v. Holder BIA Cheng, IJ A087 532 002 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
Summary: 13-2452 Guang-Xiong v. Holder BIA Cheng, IJ A087 532 002 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..
More
13-2452
Guang-Xiong v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 532 002
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 8th day of August, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WANG GUANG-XIONG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2452
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Liza S. Murcia,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Wang Guang-Xiong, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a May 28, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an
7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) January 26, 2012, denial of
8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wang Guang-Xiong,
10 No. A087 532 002 (B.I.A. May 28, 2013), aff’g No. A087 532
11 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 26, 2012). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history of this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t
16 of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006); Zaman v.
17 Mukasey,
514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The
18 applicable standards of review are well established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
20 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
21 For asylum applications, like Guang-Xiong’s, governed
22 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the
23 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding
2
1 on the applicant’s demeanor and responsiveness, as well as
2 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other
3 record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the
4 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
7 credibility determination.
8 In making its adverse credibility determination, the
9 agency cited several inconsistencies and incidents of
10 problematic demeanor. However, in his brief, Guang-Xiong
11 argues only that the agency erred in its finding related to
12 his testimony regarding his identification card. Therefore,
13 we limit our review to this single challenge to the adverse
14 credibility determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
15
426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
16 The record supports the agency’s finding that Guang-
17 Xiong’s testimony regarding his identification card was
18 inconsistent. First, Guang-Xiong testified that he had
19 personally retrieved the identification card in the record
20 from a government office before a twelve-day detention that
21 began on June 8, 2008. However, when questioned how that
22 was possible when the card was dated June 11, 2008-–a date
3
1 when he was still in detention–-Guang-Xiong testified that
2 he had two identification cards. This explanation, however,
3 did not rehabilitate his testimony. It did not explain how
4 or why the card was issued while he was in detention or why
5 he testified that he had personally retrieved a card dated
6 June 11 from a government office prior to June 8.
7 Consequently, the agency was not compelled to credit this
8 explanation. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
9 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a
10 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to
11 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-
12 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.”
13 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
14 Given the IJ’s finding regarding Guang-Xiong’s
15 problematic demeanor, and the inconsistencies in his
16 testimony and evidence related both to the identification
17 card, which calls his detention into question, and to his
18 practice of Christianity, which casts doubt on any fear of
19 future persecution, the agency’s adverse credibility
20 determination is supported by substantial evidence, and is
21 dispositive of Guang-Xiong’s claims for asylum, withholding
22 of removal, and CAT relief. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at
23 167 (holding that the court defers to the agency’s
4
1 “credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
2 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
3 could make such an adverse credibility ruling”); see also
4 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
7 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
10
11
5
