* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General

Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

08-4214-ag

Yang v. Holder

BIA

Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ

A095 710 424

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

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 30th day of March, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

DENNIS JACOBS,

Chief Judge,

PETER W. HALL,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

 Circuit Judges.

_______________________________________

QIN YANG, ALSO KNOWN AS YAM YEUNG,

Petitioner,

v. 08-4214-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,*

 

Respondent.

_______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, Law Offices of

Michael Brown, New York, New York.
2

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

General; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior

Litigation Counsel; John D.

Williams, Trial Attorney, Office of

Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, United States Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for

review is DENIED.

Petitioner Qin Yang, a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 31, 2008,

order of the BIA affirming the October 12, 2006, decision of

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Vivienne E. Gordon-Uruakpa, denying

her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

Qin Yang, No. A095 710 424 (B.I.A. July 31, 2008), aff’g No.

A095 710 424 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 12, 2006). We

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

and procedural history of the case. 

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong

Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.

2005). The applicable standards of review are wellestablished. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia

Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008);

Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

I. Adverse Credibility Determination

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

credibility determination. The agency’s adverse credibility

finding was based on several discrepancies among Yang’s

testimony, statements at her credible fear interview, and

the evidence she submitted. Specifically, Yang stated

during her credible fear interview that she had not been

mistreated or harmed in China for any reason other than her

Christian beliefs and that she had never been arrested. In

her asylum application and her testimony before the IJ,

however, Yang stated that she was forced to have an abortion
3

for having violated China’s family planning policy, and was

arrested and beaten in 2005 for having participated in

underground Christian church activities. Additionally,

although Yang submitted a letter from a church stating that

she had frequently attended religious activities there, Yang

testified that she did not attend this church. The agency

was entitled to rely on any discrepancy in finding Yang not

credible, and it properly relied on these inconsistencies. 

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

F.3d at 166-67 n.3. 

Furthermore, as the BIA found, there is no merit to

Yang’s argument that the statements she made during her

credible fear interview were unreliable. But the record of

Yang’s credible fear interview bears “hallmarks of

reliability.” See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 724-

25 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency’s adverse credibility

determination was supported by substantial evidence, and it

did not err in denying Yang’s application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief insofar as it was

based on her claimed fear of persecution for her Christian

beliefs or her claim of past persecution for her violation

of China’s family planning policy. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 

II. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution Based on the Birth of

Yang’s Third Child

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s

determination that Yang failed to establish a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of the birth of her third

child. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-68

(2d Cir. 2008). Yang argues that she submitted a village

committee notice establishing that the Chinese government

will force her to be sterilized if she returns to China. We

have previously found no error in the agency’s conclusion

that such evidence (that an applicant will be required to

comply with the family planning policy’s mandatory

sterilization requirement) does not demonstrate that such

sterilization will be carried out by force, particularly in

light of significant country conditions evidence to the

contrary. See id. at 165, 172. Indeed, as the IJ noted,

the 2005 U.S. Department of State Profile on China indicates

that there is no evidence that there have been cases of
4

forced abortions or sterilizations in Yang’s home province

of Fujian in the last ten years. Because substantial

evidence indicates that Yang’s claimed fear of persecution

was not objectively reasonable and because the agency did

not overlook any record evidence favorable to Yang on this

point, it reasonably denied Yang’s application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief insofar as it was

based on the birth of her third child. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42); see also Paul, 444 F.3d at 156. 

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).

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk