Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Min CHING, also known as Minhua Chen, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-2952-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 21, 2011.
    
      Lewis Hu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director; Steven F. Day, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Min Ching, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 24, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the January 7, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“U”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied Ching’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Min Ching, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 24, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 7, 2009). 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. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). We review the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, deferring to its credibility determination unless “no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.2007).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination in this case. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The IJ reasonably relied on inconsistencies and omissions between Ching’s credible fear interview, asylum applications, testimony, and supporting affidavit from his wife regarding whether he had a physical altercation with family planning officials, was arrested, or had registered his second daughter. Ching’s explanations that he was nervous and influenced by his culture do not compel us to find error in the IJ’s decision. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that agency need not credit applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to do so).

Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Ching’s claims are all based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is a proper basis for denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 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).