Case ID: f-appx_409/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIAN HUA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General; Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents.
    No. 09-4881-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 2, 2011.
    Henry Zhang, Zhang and Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel; Gregory M. Kelch, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, WALKER, and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jian Hua Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an October 28, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the January 28, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Hua Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 28, 2008). 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 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions for the sake of completeness. See Jigme Wangchuek v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). 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).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chen failed to provide a credible claim for asylum. First, we defer to the IJ’s finding that Chen’s hesitant and unresponsive demeanor undermined her credibility. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005); see also Shu Wen Sun v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 510 F.3d 377, 380-81 (2d Cir.2007). Second, the IJ reasonably determined that Chen’s account of her arrival to and exit from the Houston airport without encountering immigration officials was implausible. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 169 (2d Cir.2007). Third, the IJ reasonably discounted Chen’s testimony and that of her supporting witness due to internal inconsistencies. Finally, the IJ reasonably relied on Chen’s failure to provide corroboration that she indicated was available to support her questionable testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007). Although the IJ’s conclusion that Chen’s abortion might have been voluntary was speculative, see Siewe, 480 F.3d at 167-68, no remand is warranted because the burden of demonstrating such past persecution rested on Chen and the totality of the record amply supports the IJ’s finding that this claim was not credible. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 339 (explaining that “[t]he overarching test for deeming a remand futile” is whether the reviewing court can “confidently predict” that the agency would reach the same decision absent the errors that were made); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

Because Chen failed credibly to demonstrate her past violation of China’s one-child policy, her claimed fear of future persecution based upon a professed desire to have additional children is too speculative to compel relief. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005).

Chen’s inability to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim means she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006); Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir.1991). Finally, we deem any challenge to the agency’s denial of Chen’s CAT claim waived because Chen has not pursued that issue in her 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. 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).