Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-626 Chen v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A087 772 960 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: 14-626 Chen v. Holder BIA Weisel, IJ A087 772 960 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
14-626
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A087 772 960
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
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 2nd day of March, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LIANG CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-626
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Khaghendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Keith I. McManus, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady,
1 Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington D.C.
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 Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
10 of a February 4, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming the
11 March 7, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which
12 denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
13 and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Liang Chen, No. A087 772 960 (B.I.A. Feb. 4,
15 2014), aff’g No. A087 772 960 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 7,
16 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
19 the IJ’s decision as the final administrative determination.
20 See Balachova v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 The applicable standards of review are well established.
22 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
23 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
24
2
1 We conclude that the IJ’s findings provide substantial
2 evidence to support the adverse credibility determination.
3 For asylum applications like Chen’s, governed by the REAL ID
4 Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
5 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on an
6 asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his
7 account, and inconsistencies in his statements, “without
8 regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
9 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We “defer . . . to
10 [the agency’s] credibility determination unless, from the
11 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
12 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
13 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
14 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
15 The IJ reasonably based his adverse credibility
16 determination on the inconsistencies between Chen’s
17 testimony and asylum application. For example, Chen
18 testified that he first began attending religious gatherings
19 in China in 1993, but his asylum application stated that he
20 began in 2008. He testified that village cadres threatened
21 he and other practitioners at a religious gathering in 1998,
22 but his asylum application stated that this occured in 2008.
23 He also testified that he was arrested and beaten in 1999,
3
1 but his asylum application stated that this occurred in
2 2009. Chen repeatedly testified that authorities tore down
3 his family’s home in 1999, which was ten years before he
4 left China in 2010. But then he stated that the house was
5 torn down in 2000 or 2002, and changed the date yet again,
6 stating that it was torn down in 2009, only one year before
7 he left China. Moreover, a document showed that his house
8 was registered in 2001, meaning that it could not have been
9 torn down in 1999. The IJ properly relied on these
10 inconsistencies. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The IJ was
11 not required to credit Chen’s explanations. See Majidi v.
12 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that
13 the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
14 inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would
15 compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
16 Having questioned Chen’s credibility, the IJ reasonably
17 determined that his failure to provide corroborating
18 evidence further undermined his credibility. See Biao Yang
19 v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
20 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, the IJ
21 reasonably found Chen not credible. That finding is
22 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
4
1 relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
2 2006).
3
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
16
5
