Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0838-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YOU JIANG-JIN, a.k.a. Jin You Jiang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1664-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 8, 2010.
    Sheema Chaudhry, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: WALKER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner You Jiang-Jin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the March 26, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the November 7, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jeffrey L. Romig denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re You Jiang-Jin, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), affg No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 7, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination, the IJ properly relied on several inconsistencies between Jiang-Jin’s written asylum application and his testimony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). For example, although Jiang-Jin stated in his asylum application that he worked at a factory in Sichuan Province from October 2002 until January 2005, he testified that he only worked at the factory for six months, from November 2003 until April 2004. Jiang-Jin admits this inconsistency, and his argument that it is an insufficient basis for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii) (in assessing credibility, the IJ may rely on the inconsistencies in statements, without regard to whether they “go to the heart of the applicant’s claim”). Moreover, this inconsistency, the IJ found, “was not simply a matter of confusion over dates, since [Jiang-Jin]’s account of when he was introduced to Falun Gong is clearly intertwined with his alleged period of employment at the factory.” In addition, the IJ found that Jiang-Jin’s statement in his asylum application that he left China illegally and was not issued a passport contradicted his testimony that he left China with “exit permis: sion” on a valid passport issued in his own name. The IJ also found that Jiang-Jin’s failure to list his address in Sichuan Province on his asylum application, despite the fact that he claimed to have lived there while working at the factory, reflected adversely on his credibility.

These findings alone provided substantial evidence for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We therefore need not address the IJ’s additional credibility findings. Furthermore, because Jin-Jiang’s testimony and unauthenticated documents provided the only evidence that he was likely to be persecuted or tortured, and because the acceptance of that evidence depended upon his credibility, the adverse credibility determination in this case necessarily precluded success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 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).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, 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 34.1(b).