07 -53 43 -ag

Ren v. USCIS BIA Page,IJ A 097 390 656 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. C I T ATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVE RNED 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 14 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges . 12 13

_______________________________________ 14 15 MEI FANG REN, 16 Petitioner , 17 18 v. 07-5343-ag 19 NAC 20 U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 21 SERVICES, 22 Respondent . 23 24

________________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, New York. 272 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, 3 Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 Civil Division, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 D.C. 9 1 0 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 1 3 is DENIED. 1 4 Petitioner Mei Fang Ren, a native and citizen of China, 1 5 seeks review of the October 31, 2007 order of the BIA 1 6 denying her motion to remand and affirming the April 10, 1 7 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan L. Page 1 8 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 1 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 20 re Mei Fang Ren , No. A 097 390 656 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2007), 21 aff’gNo. A 097 390 656 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 10, 2 2 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 3 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 2 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both 2 5 the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 26 Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The 2 7 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 2 8 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); See also Yanqin Weng v. Holder ,3 1 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 As a preliminary matter, Ren’s brief does not challenge 3 the agency’s findings that she failed to establish a well4 founded fear of persecution or torture on account of: (1) 5 the birth of her first U.S. citizen child; or (2) her 6 illegal departure from China. Ren has therefore waived any 7 challenge to those findings. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 8 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 9 The IJ rejected Ren’s political-opinion claim after 1 0 finding her not credible. Ren argues that the IJ 1 1 erroneously relied on her airport and credible fear 1 2 interviews as a basis for the adverse credibility 1 3 determination; however, there is a “sufficiently accurate 1 4 record” of these interviews to merit consideration in 1 5 determining her credibility. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 1 6 357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir. 2004); Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 1 7 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009). As to Ren’s assertion that 1 8 the IJ erroneously relied on omissions and inconsistencies 1 9 that did not go to the heart of her claim, the cumulative 2 0 effect of those discrepancies constitutes substantial 2 1 evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See Tu 22 Lin v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ4 1 therefore did not err in denying Ren’s application for 2 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief to the extent 3 her claim was based on alleged difficulties with Chinese 4 authorities. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d 5 Cir. 2006). 6 Ren also argues that the BIA erred in denying her 7 motion to remand because: (1) it applied the wrong legal 8 standard; and (2) “the existence of U.S. born children is 9 sufficient under the prima facie evidence standard for a 1 0 remand.” We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand 1 1 for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. Dep't of Justice, 1 2 421 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2005). The BIA did not abuse its 1 3 discretion. We have previously reviewed the BIA’s 1 4 consideration of evidence similar to that which Ren 1 5 submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that 1 6 such evidence is insufficient to establish a reasonable 1 7 possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 1 8 546 F.3d 138, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Wei Guang Wang 19 v. BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, even 2 0 if we were to credit Ren’s argument that the BIA applied the 2 1 improper legal standard, remand would be futile because she 2 2 did not establish her prima facieeligibility for relief.5 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 3 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 4 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 5 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 6 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 7 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 1 2 By:___________________________