Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-3763 Yun v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 531 701 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
Summary: 14-3763 Yun v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 531 701 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 NOTATIO..
More
14-3763
Yun v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 531 701
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 5th day of October, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JIANG YUN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-3763
18 NAC
19
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
28 Assistant Attorney General; Steven
29 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur
1 Rabin, Trial Attorney; Lindsay G.
2 Donahue, Law Clerk, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 Petitioner Jiang Yun, a native and citizen of China, seeks
12 review of a September 10, 2014 decision of the BIA affirming
13 a January 23, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
14 denying Yun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
15 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
16 re Jiang Yun, No. 087 531 701 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2014), aff’g
17 No. A087 531 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 23, 2013). We assume
18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the
21 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
22 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
23 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
2 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 For asylum applications such as Yun’s, governed by the REAL
4 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the
5 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
6 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
7 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her
8 statements and evidence, so long as they reasonably support an
9 inference that the applicant is not credible. 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162,
11 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We defer “to an IJ’s
12 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the
13 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
14 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d
15 at 167.
16 The agency based its adverse credibility determination on
17 inconsistencies in Yun’s testimony and evidence regarding when
18 she became pregnant and was allegedly subjected to a forced
19 abortion. Because Yun’s inconsistent testimony relates to the
20 heart of her claim for asylum, and she did not rehabilitate that
21 inconsistent testimony with corroborating evidence,
3
1 substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
2 determination, based on a totality of the circumstances. See
3 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
4 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
5
446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, because the only
6 evidence of a threat to Yun’s life or freedom depended upon her
7 credibility, the agency’s finding that she was not credible
8 necessarily precludes success on her claims for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
10
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
18 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
