Case ID: f-appx_365/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHUN HE, a/k/a He Shun Ou Yang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1896-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 11, 2010.
    Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel; Aimee J. Frederickson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Shun He, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 8, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the February 25, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte LaFor-est denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shun He, [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 25, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). In making her adverse credibility. determination, the IJ found that: (1) while He testified that officials twice came to his home following his departure from China demanding that his parents turn him over to authorities, his father made no such assertion in a letter he submitted; (2) He’s testimony that he rarely discussed Falun Gong with others was contradicted by his father’s letter; (3) He’s testimony that he was captured by officials when he tripped and fell was contradicted by his father’s letter. Because He does not challenge the IJ’s reliance on the omission regarding the officials’ visit to his parents, it stands as a valid basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n. 3. Although He argues that he explained the remaining discrepancies, a reasonable factfinder would not have been compelled to credit his explanations. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005).

In finding He not credible, the IJ additionally found that: (1) in light of the very similar language used by both his father and his friend in their letters, it was implausible that they were written by separate individuals; and (2) it was implausible that He would fear the Chinese government, but nonetheless sign a statement requesting that DHS notify the Chinese consulate he was in custody. Contrary to He’s argument, when an alien submits two “strikingly similar” documents allegedly provided by different persons, an IJ may “treat those similarities as evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding.” Mei Chai Ye v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir.2007).

Moreover, despite He’s argument that the IJ erred in finding him not credible by relying on his request that DHS notify Chinese authorities regarding his detention, we are not compelled to reach a different conclusion. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2007).

Because He was unable to meet his burden for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher burden required for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). Additionally, He fails to sufficiently challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief in his brief to this Court. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.