Filed: Jul. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2152 Huang v. Lynch BIA Segal, IJ A201 119 008 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: 14-2152 Huang v. Lynch BIA Segal, IJ A201 119 008 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
14-2152
Huang v. Lynch
BIA
Segal, IJ
A201 119 008
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 7th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 AI QIN HUANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2152
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York.
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically
substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
3 Assistant Director; Michele Y. F.
4 Sarko, Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, U.S.
6 Department of Justice, Washington,
7 D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
12 DENIED.
13 Petitioner Ai Qin Huang, a native and citizen of the
14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 21, 2014,
15 decision of the BIA affirming a December 6, 2011, decision of
16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Huang’s application for
17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ai Qin Huang, No. A201 119 008
19 (B.I.A. May 21, 2014), aff’g No. A201 119 008 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
20 City Dec. 6, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
21 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
23 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
24 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2
1 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
3 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
4 For asylum applications such as Huang’s, which are governed
5 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality
6 of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
7 applicant’s “demeanor, candor or responsiveness,” the
8 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her
9 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of
10 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
11 Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
13 credibility determination. Huang’s argument that her
14 documentary evidence rehabilitated her incredible testimony
15 was not made before the BIA, and thus is not properly before
16 this Court. Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104,
17 107 (2d Cir. 2007).
18 Huang argues further that the agency failed to consider
19 whether she had established a well-founded fear of future
20 persecution. To the extent that she claims her documentary
3
1 evidence shows that she will be “singled out individually” for
2 harm, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii), the adverse credibility
3 determination is dispositive of that contention. Hongsheng
4 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008). Regarding
5 her argument that she has established a “pattern or practice”
6 of persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A), she has not
7 established that she is a member of a group that is persecuted,
8 in light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
9 Cf. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 Huang’s argument that the agency erred in failing to assess
11 independently her claim for CAT relief is also foreclosed by
12 Paul. A “petition for CAT relief may fail because of an adverse
13 credibility ruling rendered in the asylum context where the
14 factual basis for the alien’s CAT claim was the same as that
15 rejected in [her] asylum petition.”
Id. at 157.
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
18 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
19 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
20 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
4
1 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
3 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
