11-1628 Huang v. Holder BIA Ferris, IJ A079 682 711 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 8 th** **day of February, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 Chief Judge, 8 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 9 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 10 Circuit Judges**.** 11

**_________________________________________** 12 13 **MEI YUN HUANG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 11-1628** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent**.** 21

**_________________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Mei Yun Huang,** pro se**, New York, N.Y.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;** 26 **Leslie M. McKay, Assistant Director;** 27 **Lori B. Warlick, Trial Attorney, United** 28 **States Department of Justice,** 29 **Washington, D.C.** 30UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Mei Yun Huang, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 25, 2011, 6 decision of the BIA affirming the November 10, 2008, decision 7 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris denying her 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mei Yun 10 Huang, No. A079 682 7111 (B.I.A. March 25, 2011), aff’g No. 11 A079 682 711 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 10, 2008). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history of the case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 16 Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The 17 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 19 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 21 credibility determination. The agency cited specific 22

2examples: Huang’s testimony was internally inconsistent with 1 respect to the date of her second arrest for attending an 2 underground church and with respect to the number of times she 3 reported to the police after her first arrest (twice or “six 4 to seven times”). 5 Huang argues that the adverse credibility determination 6 was based on conjecture and unfair questioning about matters 7 beyond her knowledge and about ancillary issues. However, the 8 BIA ruled that, even absent these other discrepancies and 9 inconsistencies, the inconsistencies regarding the date of her 10 second arrest and the number of times she reported to the 11 police were sufficient. 12 Further, we afford particular deference to the IJ’s 13 observations of Huang’s demeanor during her testimony. See 14 Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2004), 15 overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of 16 Justice , 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 Huang also argues that she fears future persecution on 18 the basis of a pattern and practice of persecuting Christians 19 in China. But since she did not raise that claim before the 20 BIA, we deem it unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). 22

3Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying Huang’s 1 application for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief, 2 as those claims were all based on the same factual predicate. 3 See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 Although the IJ’s ruling that Huang had not satisfied her 5 burden of proof on the issue of whether she is a Christian is 6 dubious, the claim of a fear of religious persecution was 7 ultimately rejected on the ground that the evidence did not 8 show a pattern of religious persecution of Protestants. That 9 ultimate ruling was not erroneous. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 17 34.1(b). 18
FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20

21

4