18-630 Ren v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 302 668 

### 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 18 th**  **day of December, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 8 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ZHIQIANG REN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 18-630** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Wei Gu, Albertson, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Linda S. 27 Wernery, Assistant Director; 28 Steven K. Uejio, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Zhiqiang Ren, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 13, 6 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 29, 2017 decision 7 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Zhiqiang Ren, No. A206 302 668 (B.I.A. Feb. 10 13, 2018), aff’g No. A206 302 668 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 11 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history. 13 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 14 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 15 Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 16 applicable standards of review are well established. See 17 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 18 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 19 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 20 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 21 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 22 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 233 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the 1 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 2 [and] the internal consistency of each such statement . . . 3 without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or 4 falsehood goes to the heart of the app licant’s claim . . . .” 5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. 6 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 163–64 (2d Cir. 2008). Substantial 7 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ren was not 8 credible as to his claim that family planning officials and 9 police harmed him for helping his wife escape officials’ 10 efforts to terminate her pregnancy under China’s family 11 planning policy. 12 The agency reasonably questioned the plausibility of 13 Ren’s testimony that he and his wife were able to escape from 14 seven or eight family planning officials when his wife was 15 nine months pregnant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 16 Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 66-68 (2d Cir. 2007) 17 (recognizing that adverse credibility determination may be 18 based on inherent implausibility in applicant’s story if the 19 “finding is tethered to record evidence” or based on common 20 sense). When given an opportunity to explain how their 21 escape was possible, Ren became evasive and unresponsive, 22 which the agency reasonably found further impugned his 234 credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also 1 Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) 2 (recognizing that particular deference is given to the trier 3 of fact’s assessment of demeanor). And, when pressed for 4 specific details about the escape, Ren testified 5 inconsistently regarding whether family planning officials 6 called police immediately, whether he and his wife escaped in 7 a car or electric bike, and whether he knew if family planning 8 officials attempted to chase after them or not. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi , 430 F.3d at 81 n.1. 10 Given the implausibility, demeanor, and inconsistency 11 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is 12 supported by substantial evidence and was dispositive of 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. 14

Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 17 stays VACATED. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court 21