16

- 2185

Ma v. Sessions

BIA

Loprest , IJ

A 205 240 453



### 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 COU RT, 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 19**  **th da**  **y of December**  **, two thousand** 4

**seven tee**  **n.** 5

6

**PRESENT:** 7

**DENNIS JACOBS**

**,** 8

**PETER W. HALL**

**,** 9

**RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.**

**,** 10

**Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12

13

**JIANZHONG MA**

**,** 14

**Petitioner**

**,** 15

16

**v. 16** 

**- 2185**  17

**NAC** 18

**JEFF ERSON B.**  **SESSIONS**

**, III,**  19

**UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL** 

**,** 20

**Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22

23

**FOR PETITIONER :**  Jianzhong Ma, pro se

, Flushing, 24

NY

. 25

26

**FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27

Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 28

Andrew N. O’Malley

, Senior 29

Litigation Counsel; Timothy G. 30

Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of 31

Immigration Litigation

, United 322 States Depar tment of Justice, 1

Washington, D C. 2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 3

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 4

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 5

is DENIED. 6

Pet itioner Jianzhong Ma , a native and citizen of the 7

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a May 26, 2016

, 8

decision of the BIA affirming a March 10

, 2015, decision of 9

an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ma’s application for 10

asylum, withholding of removal

, and relief under the 11

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianzhong Ma

, No. 12

A205 240 453 (B.I.A. May 26, 2016 ), aff’g No. A205 240 453 13

(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 10, 2015 ). We assume the parties’ 14

familiarity with the underlying facts and pr ocedural history 15

in this case. 16

Under the circumstances of this case, we have review ed 17

the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. 18

Wala v. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Xue Hong 19

Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 20

2005)

. The applicable standards of review are well 21

established . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 22

Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165

- 66 (2d Cir. 2 008) ; Y.C. v. Holder

, 23

741 F.3d 324 , 332 (2d Cir. 2013)

. 243 **I. Adverse Credibility Ruling**  1

The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 2

circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination 3

on discrepancies between an applicant’s oral and written 4

statements and between an applicant’s statements and other 5

record evidence, and “any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 6

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163

- 64. “ We 7

defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . 8

. it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make 9

such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d 10

at 167. 11

S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 12

credibility ruling. First, the agency reasonably relied on 13

a discrepancy between Ma’s testimony and his supporting 14

evidence regarding the name of the U.S. church he attended

. 15

Ma argues that the church ’s name can be translated in 16

dif ferent ways , and that blessing Christian Mission Church is 17

translated in Mandarin as Christ Grace Church. This argument 18

does not compel a different result. Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 19

F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than 20

offer a plausible explanation for his inconsisten t statements 21

to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

22

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony. ” 234 ( internal quotation marks omitted ))

. Neither M a nor his 1

counsel object ed to the interpretation

, nor has Ma provided 2

any independent evidence to support his claim regarding the 3

translation

. See INS v. Phinpathya , 464 U.S. 183, 188 n. 6 4

(1984) (assertions in a brief are not evidence). 5

This material inconsistency calls into question whether 6

Ma attended church regularly (or at all) in the United States, 7

which in turn casts doubt on whether he is a practicing 8

Christian. Cf. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 44 6 9

F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (holdin g that even a single 10

material inconsistency can support an adverse credibility 11

determination)

. 12

The adverse credibility ruling is also supported by Ma’s 13

admission that he lied to U.S. immigration officials and 14

provided a false marriage certificate and employment records 15

in order to obtain a U.S. visa. Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 16

167; Siewe v. Gonzales

, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] 17

single false document or a single instance of false testimony 18

may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of 19

the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). 20

Although fraud in fleeing persecution may sometimes enhance 21

credibility

, see Rui Ying Lin v. Gonzales

, 445 F.3d 127, 133 22

(2d Cir. 2006)

, Ma’s credibility is undermined because he did 235 not allege past religious persecution or press his political 1

opinion claim before the IJ

, Majidi

, 430 F.3d at 80

- 81. That 2

omission provided an additional basis for the adverse 3

credibility ruling, which Ma does not challenge. These 4

inconsistencies and Ma’s admission of use of fraudulent 5

documents provide substantial evidence for the agency’s 6

adverse credibility ruling. Xiu Xia Lin

, 534 F.3d at 167; 7

Xian Tuan Ye

, 446 F.3d at 295

- 96; Siewe

, 480 F.3d at 170. 8

Because Ma’s claims were all based on the same factual 9

predicate, the adverse credibility determination is 10

dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 11

relief. Paul v. Gonzales

, 444 F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 12

2006). 13

**II. Well** 

**- founded Fear**  14

Alternatively, we find no error in the agency’s 15

determination that Ma did not state an objectively reasonable 16

fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); 17

Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004)

. 18

Ma did not show that he would be singled out for 19

persecution, especially given his testimony that his wife 20

occasionally attended an underground church and had not 21

been harmed. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 22

313 (2d Cir. 1999). Nor did he establish a pattern of 236 perse cution of Christians in China because the country 1

conditions reflected that treatment varied by region, and 2

Ma did not provide any evidence of persecution of 3

Christians in his home province. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) 4

(2)(iii); c f. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 159

- 5

62, 174 (2d Cir. 2008)

. 6

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7

DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 8

that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 9

and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 10

is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 11

in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 12

Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 13

34.1(b). 14

FOR T HE COURT: 15

Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16