Filed: Feb. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-4270 Shui v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A201 158 676 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
Summary: 14-4270 Shui v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A201 158 676 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..
More
14-4270
Shui v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A201 158 676
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 2nd day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 FENG ZING SHUI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-4270
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; John S.
27 Hogan, Assistant Director; Mona
28 Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, D.C.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
7 DENIED.
8 Petitioner Feng Zing Shui, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 21, 2014,
10 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA), affirming
11 a December 7, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
12 denying Shui’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
13 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
14 re Feng Zing Shui, No. A201 158 676 (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2014), aff’g
15 No. A201 158 676 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 2012). We assume
16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
17 procedural history in this case.
18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency
19 determination. Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.
20 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
22 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
1 For asylum applications like Shui’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
4 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
5 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
6 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
7 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
8 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
9 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
10 In this case, the adverse credibility determination is
11 supported by substantial evidence.
12 Shui claimed she was arrested, detained, and beaten for
13 attending an underground Christian church in China. Shui
14 testified that she was born and had always lived in Fujian
15 province, but her household registry booklet shows that she is
16 registered in Sichuan province; her notarial birth certificate
17 states that she was born in Sichuan province; and her Chinese
18 national identification card states that it was issued in
19 Sichuan province. Shui’s explanation for the inconsistency
20 was not one that the IJ was required to credit. Majidi v.
21 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 The IJ relied on additional discrepancies between Shui’s
2 testimony and her supporting documents. Shui testified that
3 she did not know whether her underground church was still
4 functioning, but she submitted a letter from the church on
5 letterhead dated June 2012. She explained that she misspoke.
6 The IJ reasonably declined to credit this explanation. Majidi,
7 430 F.3d at 80-81. In addition, although Shui claimed that she
8 and 17 or 19 other members of her church were arrested in October
9 2010, the letter from the church does not mention any such raid
10 or any arrests.
11 The IJ identified other inconsistencies between Shui’s
12 testimony and her credible fear interview. We require the
13 agency to “closely examine each . . . interview before
14 concluding that it represents a sufficiently accurate record
15 of the alien’s statements . . . in determining whether the alien
16 is credible.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d
17 Cir. 2004); Ming Zhang v. Holder,
585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir
18 2009). Here, the IJ noted that the credible fear interview was
19 admitted into evidence without objection from Shui’s attorney,
20 that Shui was provided a Mandarin interpreter at the interview,
21 that she did not indicate that she misunderstood the
4
1 interpreter, and that the interview was written in question and
2 answer format and gave sufficient detail to conclude that it
3 was a reliable record of Shui’s answers to the interviewer’s
4 questions. Under these circumstances, the interview bears
5 sufficient indicia of reliability. Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d 725.
6 During her credible fear interview, Shui stated that she
7 did not know the name of the pastor at her underground church,
8 but at her hearing, she testified that his name was Lin Guang
9 and that she spoke to him frequently up until her October 2010
10 arrest. She explained by saying that the church members called
11 him pastor and not by name. In addition, Shui stated during
12 her interview that she did not know the names of any of the people
13 arrested with her, but she wrote in her asylum application that
14 she was arrested at the home of a fellow member named Zheng Xiao
15 Long. Shui explained that she was nervous during her
16 interview. The IJ reasonably declined to credit these
17 explanations.
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
18 Considering the discrepancies in the record, the IJ’s
19 adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
20 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at
21 165-66. This finding was sufficient to deny asylum,
5
1 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as all three claims were
2 based on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
3 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
4 Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
7 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
8 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
9 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
10 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
12 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
