Filed: Dec. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 18-630 Ren v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 302 668 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 NOT
Summary: 18-630 Ren v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 302 668 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 NOTA..
More
18-630
Ren v. Barr
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A206 302 668
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 18th day of December, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZHIQIANG REN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-630
17 NAC
18
19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
27 Attorney General; Linda S.
28 Wernery, Assistant Director;
29 Steven K. Uejio, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 United States Department of
32 Justice, Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Zhiqiang Ren, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 13,
7 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 29, 2017 decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Zhiqiang Ren, No. A206 302 668 (B.I.A. Feb.
11 13, 2018), aff’g No. A206 302 668 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June
12 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history.
14 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s
15 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
16 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
17 applicable standards of review are well established. See
18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions,
891 F.3d
19 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of
23 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the
2
1 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the
2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . ,
3 [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . .
4 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
5 falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim . . . .”
6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v.
7 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial
8 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ren was not
9 credible as to his claim that family planning officials and
10 police harmed him for helping his wife escape officials’
11 efforts to terminate her pregnancy under China’s family
12 planning policy.
13 The agency reasonably questioned the plausibility of
14 Ren’s testimony that he and his wife were able to escape from
15 seven or eight family planning officials when his wife was
16 nine months pregnant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
17 Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 63, 66-68 (2d Cir. 2007)
18 (recognizing that adverse credibility determination may be
19 based on inherent implausibility in applicant’s story if the
20 “finding is tethered to record evidence” or based on common
21 sense). When given an opportunity to explain how their
22 escape was possible, Ren became evasive and unresponsive,
23 which the agency reasonably found further impugned his
3
1 credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
2 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005)
3 (recognizing that particular deference is given to the trier
4 of fact’s assessment of demeanor). And, when pressed for
5 specific details about the escape, Ren testified
6 inconsistently regarding whether family planning officials
7 called police immediately, whether he and his wife escaped in
8 a car or electric bike, and whether he knew if family planning
9 officials attempted to chase after them or not. See 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81 n.1.
11 Given the implausibility, demeanor, and inconsistency
12 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is
13 supported by substantial evidence and was dispositive of
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
15 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
18 stays VACATED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
4
