11-3607 Chen v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A089 203 930 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**  **FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER**  **IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY**  **ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 26 th** **day of September, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **YANG HONG CHEN, AKA LAN CHEN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-3607** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina,** 26 **Jr., Assistant Director; Dana M.** 27 **Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 292 **States Department of Justice,** 1 **Washington, D.C.** 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Yang Hong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 8 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 8, 2011, 9 decision of the BIA affirming the October 28, 2009, decision 10 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application 11 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 12 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yang Hong Chen , 13 No. A089 203 930 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2011),aff’gNo. A089 203 14 930 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 28, 2009). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 19 Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 20 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 22 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 23

243 For applications such as Chen’s, governed by the 1 amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act by 2 the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the 3 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on 4 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 5 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 6 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart 7 of the applicant’s claim.” See8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,534 F.3d 162, 9 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We will “defer to an IJ’s 10 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 11 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 12 could make” such a ruling. Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 13 Here, the IJ reasonably based his adverse credibility 14 determination on Chen’s omissions in her written 15 application, including Chen’s failure to mention in her 16 application that: (1) the police came to her home after she 17 was released from custody; and (2) she was arrested with her 18 pastor, though her assertion at the hearing that he was sent 19 to a labor camp would have provided objective proof of 20 Chen’s fear of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3 224 (holding that, for purposes of analyzing a credibility 1 determination, “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are . . . 2 functionally equivalent”). 3 The IJ also reasonably found that the certification 4 from Chen’s church in China was likely a forgery because 5 such a small church, which Chen testified was composed of 6 eleven individuals, would not likely provide its members 7 with a formal certificate and have a seal. See Siewe v. 8 Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007); Xiao Ji Chen 9 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 10 Moreover, Chen did not offer letters from her parents 11 corroborating the police visit to her house, who, though 12 illiterate, could have used a transcriber, or letters from 13 fellow church members in the United States more recent than 14 a one-year-old letter corroborating her church attendance. 15 Given the omissions and discrepancies between Chen’s 16 application and testimony, the IJ reasonably relied on the 17 lack of corroboration to further bear on her credibility, 18 and was not required, as Chen argues, to first identify the 19 particular pieces of missing evidence. Chuilu Liu v. 20 Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 198 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009). As the only 21 evidence of a threat to Chen’s life or freedom, or that she 225 was likely to be tortured, depended upon her credibility, 1 the adverse credibility determination in this case 2 necessarily precludes success on her claims for asylum, 3 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. 4 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this 7 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 8 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 9 34.1(b). 10

FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12 13 14