10-2464-ag Huang v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A088 530 588 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 17 th** **day of August, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **KE YUN HUANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-2464-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Greg Mack, Senior** 26 **Litigation Counsel; Wendy Benner** 27 **León, Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, Washington** 29 **D.C.** 30UPON 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 Ke Yun Huang, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of the June 9, 2010, decision of the BIA 6 affirming the September 18, 2008, decision of Immigration 7 Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying his application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ke Yun Huang, No. 10 A088 530 588 (B.I.A. June 9, 2010), aff’gNo. A088 530 588 11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 18, 2008). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales , 16 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We “defer to an IJ’s 17 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 18 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 19 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 20 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum 21 applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, 22

2considering the totality of the circumstances, base a 1 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 3 statements, without regard to whether they go “to the heart 4 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 5 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 7 credibility determination. In finding Huang not credible, 8 the agency reasonably relied in part on his omission from 9 his asylum application of his claim that he was handcuffed 10 for 80 minutes while in detention. See8 U.S.C. 11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166- 12 67 & n.3. Although we have recognized that asylum 13 applicants are not required to list every incident or 14 provide every detail in their asylum applications because 15 the application form provides only limited space for an 16 applicant to describe his claim,see Pavlova v. INS , 441 17 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Secaida-Rosales v. INS , 18 331 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir. 2003),superseded by statute on 19 other grounds as recognized in Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163- 20 64, the IJ reasonably rejected Huang’s explanation that he 21 was unable to include many details in his application as he 22

3attached a two page detailed statement in support of his 1 application and he provided other inconsistent explanations 2 for the omission. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80- 3 81 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 4 We further find no error in the agency’s determination that 5 Huang’s account of his escape from detention was 6 implausible. See8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);see also 7 Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). 8 Thus, the agency’s adverse credibility determination 9 was supported by substantial evidence and provided an 10 adequate basis for denying Huang’s application for asylum, 11 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because those claims 12 all were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 13 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 19

20
FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23

4