Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0033-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XUE MING JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-3552-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 17, 2010.
    
      Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Dawn S. Conrad, Trial Attorney (Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, GUIDO CALABRESI and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Xue Ming Jiang, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the July 24, 2009 order of the BIA, affirming the October 15, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel A. Brennan denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xue Ming Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 24, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 15, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. 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. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); see also Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. For asylum applications governed by the amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his or her account, and inconsistencies in his or her statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Here, the record supports the IJ’s findings that: (1) Jiang provided inconsistent testimony regarding the details of his arrest; (2) Jiang provided evasive and inconsistent testimony regarding whether he was employed after he was released from detention; (3) Jiang failed to provide an adequate explanation as to how he was able to obtain travel visas after he was released from detention, given that he was expected to report monthly to Chinese authorities; (4) Jiang’s negative demeanor was impacted by his quirky behavior, which included a “forced cough” during certain parts of his testimony; (5) Jiang testified implausibly when he claimed that he did not know how long his friend was detained, even though he and his friend were arrested together and though he submitted a letter from his friend which indicated that his friend was detained for two weeks; and (6) Jiang testified implausibly that he practiced Falun Gong alone in his house in Brooklyn, but submitted photographs thereby indicating that someone else had been present on at least three occasions.

To the extent Jiang challenges the IJ’s other credibility findings, we decline to consider these arguments. Even if the IJ’s remaining findings were in error, remand would be futile as we can confidently predict that the agency would reach the same conclusion on remand. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.2006). Accordingly, the IJ properly denied Jiang’s application for withholding of removal and CAT relief because the only evidence that he was likely to be persecuted or tortured depended on his credibility. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006).

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 34.1(b).