Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0065-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FEI ZHUO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-1253 NAC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 22, 2014.
    Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Gerald M. Alexander, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Fei Zhuo, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a March 13, 2013, order of the BIA, affirming the August 4, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fei Zhuo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. New York City Aug. 4, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam).

For applications such as Zhuo’s, which are governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may base a credibility finding on an applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We “defer to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Zhuo does not contest the presence or materiality of the inconsistency that formed the basis of the adverse credibility determination. Instead, he contends that the IJ failed to sufficiently probe his explanation that his testimony and application differed because he was nervous. Thus, Zhuo appears to suggest that he would have proffered a better explanation if asked by the IJ to clarify how his nervousness accounted for the inconsistency, although he does not identify what that better explanation would have been. The IJ was entitled to reject Zhou’s explanation that he was nervous because the explanation would not be compelling to a reasonable fact-finder. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

The agency reasonably determined that Zhou’s failure to provide sufficient corroborative evidence — including testimony from his wife, then a resident of the United States — further undermined his credibility. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam). Zhuo testified that he began dating his wife in China prior to his arrest in 2008 and, therefore, the BIA reasonably determined that her testimony would have been probative. The IJ also reasonably noted that Zhuo’s wife would have been able to corroborate his practice of Falun Gong in the United States, even though she was not a Falun Gong practitioner. Id.

As the agency reasonably found that Zhuo failed to establish eligibility for asylum on credibility grounds, it did not err in denying withholding of removal and CAT relief because these claims shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005). We decline to consider Zhuo’s unexhausted challenge to the IJ’s consideration of his unauthenticated evidence. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 124 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.