16-1388 

Jiang v. Sessions 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A205 390 719

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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

10th 4 day of October, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JON O. NEWMAN,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 WEI JIANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-1388 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhen Liang Li, New York, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

26 Assistant Attorney General; Leslie 

27 McKay, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior 

28 Litigation Counsel, Office of 

29 Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Wei Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s 

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 30, 2016, decision 

7 of the BIA affirming an April 23, 2015, decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application for 

9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wei Jiang, No. A205 390 719 

11 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A205 390 719 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 

12 City Apr. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 

13 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

15 the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 

16 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The applicable 

17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 

18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165–66 

19 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The agency may, “[c]onsidering 

20 the totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding 

21 on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” 
3

1 and inconsistencies in his testimony, his witness’s testimony, 

2 and his documentary evidence, “without regard to whether” any 

3 such inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 

4 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

5 at 163–64, 167. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 

6 determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable 

7 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 

8 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Substantial evidence supports 

9 the agency’s determination that Jiang was not credible. 

10 Jiang primarily challenges the agency’s reliance on the 

11 record of his interview with a Border Patrol agent, in which 

12 he stated that he came to the United States to be with family 

13 in New York and did not fear any harm in China. 

14 “In assessing the reliability” of statements made during 

15 a border interview, “we may take into account (1) whether the 

16 ‘record of the interview . . . merely summarizes or paraphrases 

17 the alien’s statements [rather than providing] a verbatim 

18 account or transcript,’ (2) whether the questions posed to the 

19 alien seem ‘designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim,’ 

20 (3) whether ‘the alien appears to have been reluctant to reveal 

21 information to . . . officials because of prior interrogation 
4

1 sessions or other coercive experiences in his or her home 

2 country,’ and (4) whether ‘the alien’s answers to the questions 

3 posed suggest that the alien did not understand English or the 

4 translations provided by the interpreter.” Yun-Zui Guan, 432 

5 F.3d at 396 (quoting Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 

6 179–80 (2d Cir. 2004)). The interview record reflected Jiang’s 

7 answers verbatim and showed that an interpreter was used and 

8 that Jiang understood the agent’s questions. And while Jiang 

9 testified that he told the Border Patrol agent that he feared 

10 harm in China, he also acknowledged that he understood the 

11 interpreter and signed the interview record after it was read 

12 to him. Thus, the agency did not err in concluding that the 

13 interview record was reliable. Id. 

14 Jiang concedes that his testimony conflicted with his 

15 sister’s testimony regarding whether he attended church on the 

16 Sunday before the asylum hearing. Although he argues that 

17 their respective testimonies were otherwise consistent and thus 

18 believable, his position is unfounded. The inconsistency 

19 between Jiang’s testimony and his sister’s testimony called 

20 into question their credibility as a whole and undermined 

21 Jiang’s claim that he is a practicing Christian. See Siewe v. 
5

1 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false 

2 document or a single instance of false testimony may (if 

3 attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the 

4 alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). Jiang 

5 testified that he skipped church for the first time because he 

6 was picking up money that a friend owed his sister. However, 

7 Jiang’s sister testified that she and Jiang attended church 

8 together that day, Jiang stayed for the entire sermon, Jiang’s 

9 friends did not owe her any money, and no one had returned money 

10 to her that day. Jiang has not offered any explanation for this 

11 discrepancy, which calls into question both Jiang’s and his 

12 sister’s credibility regarding their church attendance. Id.; 

13 see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005). 

14 Jiang does not challenge any other grounds for the adverse 

15 credibility determination and did not challenge them before the 

16 BIA, so any further challenges are both unexhausted and waived. 

17 See Foster v. U.S. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004) (per 

18 curiam) (discussing exhaustion); Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 

19 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) (waiver). Accordingly, the agency’s 

20 other grounds—inconsistent documentary evidence regarding 

21 Jiang’s church attendance, and Jiang’s demeanor—stand as valid 
6

1 bases for the adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu 

2 Li, 529 F.3d at 146–47. 

3 Given the substantial discrepancies relating both to 

4 Jiang’s allegation of past harm and his continuing practice of 

5 Christianity, the totality of the circumstances supports the 

6 adverse credibility determination. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 

7 167. Because Jiang’s claims were all based on the same factual 

8 predicate, the adverse credibility determination is 

9 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 

10 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

18 34.1(b). 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk