Case ID: f-appx_483/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIAO LING ZHANG, aka Mei Yan Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2801-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 25, 2012.
    
      John Z. Zhang, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ada Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel; Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Jiao Ling Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 15, 2011, order of the BIA affirming the August 31, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schop-pert, which denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiao Ling Zhang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 15, 2011), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 31, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this ease.

Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 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. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

For applications (such as this) 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 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008). We will “defer to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence: (1) Zhang’s failure to mention during her credible fear interview the first forcible abortion she allegedly underwent; (2) Zhang’s testimony, contrary to a statement in her asylum application that she was not forcibly subjected to insertion of an intrauterine device; (3) Zhang’s failure to mention during her testimony that family planning officials visited her home after her second abortion, as she asserted in her credible fear interview; and (4) Zhang’s testimony that her boyfriend in the United States was unaware of her flight to the United States, though she stated the opposite during an airport interview. Moreover, the IJ reasonably rejected Zhang’s explanations for her inconsistent testimony. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). Given these inconsistencies and omissions in Zhang’s testimony and between her testimony and the documentary evidence, the totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

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). 
      
      . Zhang argues with some force that the discrepancy in her testimony regarding her child’s date of birth was obviously explained by her inconsistent use of the lunar calendar. But, because the totality of the evidence supports the adverse credibility determination, remand is not warranted. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513.