Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RONG JIANG-ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1642-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2010.
    Lee Ratner, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Kerry A. Monaco, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Rong Jiang-Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 26, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the November 8, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) William Van Wyke, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rong Jiang-Zheng, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), affg No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 8, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95. First, the IJ reasonably relied on Jiang-Zheng’s demeanor in concluding that his testimony was “entirely unconvincing.” The IJ noted that Jian-Zheng was unresponsive to the questions posed, often hedged in his answers, and displayed reactions that were “inappropriate” under the circumstances. Because the “[IJ’s] ability to observe the witness’s demeanor places [him] in the best position to evaluate [credibility],” Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir.2005), we defer to the IJ’s assessment that Jiang-Zheng’s overall demeanor undermined his credibility. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005).

Second, the IJ reasonably relied on several inconsistencies between Jiang-Zheng’s testimony and the documents of record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Jiang-Zheng testified that Wu Jiang, a friend who introduced him to Christianity, was not present on the day Jiang-Zheng was arrested. However, Wu Jiang states in a letter that “[w]e had also been arrested, beaten and held in the Police Station because of our affiliation with the church.” In addition, Jiang-Zheng gave discrepant testimony regarding the ministers at the two churches he purportedly attended in the United States. Although Jiang-Zheng offered explanations for these inconsistencies, no reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit them. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 81. Thus, the IJ was entitled to rely on these discrepancies in finding Jiang-Zheng not credible. Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir.2006).

Finally, having called Jiang-Zheng’s credibility into question, the IJ reasonably relied upon the absence of reliable evidence corroborating Jiang-Zheng’s alleged practice of Christianity in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007).

Ultimately, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.2007). Thus, because Jiang-Zheng’s entire claim for relief was based on his fear of harm on account of his Christian faith, the agency’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275 (2d Cir.2003).

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. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).