16-2797 Zhang v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A205 427 612 

### 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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 8 th**  **day of May, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **RONGWEI ZHANG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-2797** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Julie M. 26 Iversen, Senior Litigation 27 Counsel; Annette M. Wietecha, 28 Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 322 UPON 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 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Rongwei Zhang, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 1, 6 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a December 9, 2014, 7 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Rongwei Zhang, No. A 205 427 612 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2016), 11 aff’g No. A 205 427 612 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 9, 2014). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Yun-Zui Guan v. 16 Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 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- 19 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 21 relevant factors, [an IJ] may base a credibility 22 determination on the applicant’s . . . demeanor, candor, or 233 responsiveness . . . the consistency between the 1 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . ., the 2 internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 3 consistency of such statements with other evidence of 4 record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia 5 Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64, 167. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 6 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no 7 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 8 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 9 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 10 that Zhang was not credible. 11 The agency reasonably relied on a discrepancy regarding 12 Zhang’s detention: while Zhang alleged that she was 13 detained at her workplace for 2 days and was later arrested 14 and detained by the police for 6 days, letters she 15 submitted from her husband and her sister describe threats 16 and harassment, but do not mention that she was arrested or 17 detained. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 18 F.3d at 166-67 & n.3 (“An inconsistency and an omission 19 are, for [credibility] purposes, functionally 20 equivalent.”). Zhang did not provide an explanation for 21 the discrepancy. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80- 22 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that agency is not required to 234 credit explanations that are less than compelling). 1 Discrepancies regarding Zhang’s union membership and the 2 date and manner she was fired from her job at the liquor 3 factory provided further support for the adverse 4 credibility ruling. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 5 Lin , 534 F.3d at 166-67. 6 The adverse credibility determination was bolstered by 7 the IJ’s negative demeanor assessment, to which we defer. 8 See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d 9 Cir. 2006) (granting particular deference to the agency’s 10 demeanor findings). Review of the transcript confirms that 11 Zhang took several long pauses and had difficulty answering 12 questions, especially on cross examination. 13 The agency also reasonably relied on Zhang’s failure to 14 provide rehabilitative corroborating evidence. See Biao 15 Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An 16 applicant’s failure to corroborate [her] . . . testimony 17 may bear on credibility, because the absence of 18 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to 19 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into 20 question.”). The agency did not err in discounting the 21 letters from Zhang’s husband and sister: these letters were 22 authored by interested witnesses who were unavailable for 235 cross examination, the letters contained substantially 1 similar language, and, as described above, the letters 2 conflicted with Zhang’s testimony because they omitted her 3 detention. Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 325, 334 (2d Cir. 4 2013) (deferring to agency’s decision to give limited 5 weight to letter from applicant’s spouse in China). And 6 Zhang’s failure to submit proof of her employment was 7 problematic because she alleged that she was employed at 8 the same factory for over 20 years and received multiple 9 awards for her performance. 10 Because Zhang’s claims were all based on the same 11 factual predicate, the adverse credibility determination is 12 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 13 relief. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 14 2006). In light of this outcome, we do not address the 15 agency’s alternative conclusion that Zhang was not harmed 16 on account of a political opinion. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 17 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and 18 agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 19 decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 20 reach.”). 21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 22 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 236 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 2 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 3 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 5 34.1(b). 6

FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 8 9