13-675

Wang v. Holder

BIA

Cheng, IJ

A087 974 622

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 24th 4 day of June, two thousand fourteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 REENA RAGGI,

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________

12

13 CHUN LI WANG,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 13-675

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _____________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Grace Victoria Calle, New York, NY.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant

27 Director; Kristen Giuffreda Chapman,

28 Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, United

30 States Department of Justice,

31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is

3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for

4 review is DENIED.

5 Chun Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks

6 review of a January 28, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming

7 an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) September 22, 2011 denial of

8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun Li Wang, No.

10 A087 974 622 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2013), aff’g No. A087 974 622

11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 22, 2011). We assume the

12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

13 procedural history of this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

15 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See 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); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d

19 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).

20 For asylum applications, like Wang’s, governed by the

21 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of

22 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on

23 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other

2
1 record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the

2 heart of the applicant’s claim,” demeanor and responsiveness

3 to questioning, and the “inherent plausibility” of the

4 applicant’s account. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia

5 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the

6 agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

7 First, we defer to the IJ’s findings regarding

8 demeanor. The agency made a preliminary finding that Wang’s

9 demeanor suggested he was testifying in a scripted manner. 

10 This finding is supported by the record and is

11 “paradigmatically the sort of evidence that a fact-finder is

12 best positioned to evaluate.” Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d

13 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2006). 

14 The adverse credibility determination is further

15 supported by the IJ’s identification of inconsistencies in

16 the record and omissions from Wang’s asylum application. 

17 As the agency found, Wang’s asylum application lacked any

18 information about his religious activities between 1993 and

19 2004. Wang explicitly stated in his application that he

20 “didn’t have contact . . . with Christianity” during this

21 time period. However, he testified that he prayed and read

22 the Bible in his home throughout this period. Viewed as

3
1 either as an omission or an inconsistency, the agency’s

2 consideration of this discrepancy in determining credibility

3 was appropriate. Furthermore, Wang’s explanation for the

4 omission–namely, that this information was not important–was

5 insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony was

6 credible. “A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible

7 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure

8 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder

9 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v.

10 Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal

11 quotation marks and citations omitted).

12 The agency also reasonably relied on testimonial

13 inconsistencies regarding whether Wang sought medical

14 attention after his alleged beating for attending an

15 underground church. Wang initially stated he received no

16 medical attention, but then stated that he did receive

17 treatment at a private clinic. Further, Wang’s explanation

18 for omitting information about his injuries from his asylum

19 application –- that he “did not think about this” –- also

20 was insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony

21 was credible. Id.

22 Given the demeanor findings and the inconsistencies and

23 omissions relating to the practice of Christianity and sole

4
1 allegation of past harm, the “totality of the circumstances”

2 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 

3 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. As all of Wang’s claims

4 share the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility

5 determination is dispositive. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444

6 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

15 FOR THE COURT: 

16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

17

18

5