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.**  **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 24 th** **day of June, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 7 **REENA RAGGI,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CHUN LI WANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-675** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Grace Victoria Calle, New York, NY.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant** 26 **Director; Kristen Giuffreda Chapman,** 27 **Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, United** 29 **States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 31UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DENIED. 4 Chun Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks 5 review of a January 28, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming 6 an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) September 22, 2011 denial of 7 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 8 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun Li Wang, No. 9 A087 974 622 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2013), aff’gNo. A087 974 622 10 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 22, 2011). We assume the 11 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 12 procedural history of this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 14 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 15 Gonzales , 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 16 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 18 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 19 For asylum applications, like Wang’s, governed by the 20 REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 21 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on 22 inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and other 23
2record evidence without regard to whether they go “to the 1 heart of the applicant’s claim,” demeanor and responsiveness 2 to questioning, and the “inherent plausibility” of the 3 applicant’s account. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 4 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the 5 agency’s adverse credibility determination. 6 First, we defer to the IJ’s findings regarding 7 demeanor. The agency made a preliminary finding that Wang’s 8 demeanor suggested he was testifying in a scripted manner. 9 This finding is supported by the record and is 10 “paradigmatically the sort of evidence that a fact-finder is 11 best positioned to evaluate.” Li Zu Guan v. INS, 453 F.3d 12 129, 140 (2d Cir. 2006). 13 The adverse credibility determination is further 14 supported by the IJ’s identification of inconsistencies in 15 the record and omissions from Wang’s asylum application. 16 As the agency found, Wang’s asylum application lacked any 17 information about his religious activities between 1993 and 18 2004. Wang explicitly stated in his application that he 19 “didn’t have contact . . . with Christianity” during this 20 time period. However, he testified that he prayed and read 21 the Bible in his home throughout this period. Viewed as 22

3either as an omission or an inconsistency, the agency’s 1 consideration of this discrepancy in determining credibility 2 was appropriate. Furthermore, Wang’s explanation for the 3 omission–namely, that this information was not important–was 4 insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony was 5 credible. “A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 6 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure 7 relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder 8 would be compelled to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. 9 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal 10 quotation marks and citations omitted). 11 The agency also reasonably relied on testimonial 12 inconsistencies regarding whether Wang sought medical 13 attention after his alleged beating for attending an 14 underground church. Wang initially stated he received no 15 medical attention, but then stated that he did receive 16 treatment at a private clinic. Further, Wang’s explanation 17 for omitting information about his injuries from his asylum 18 application –- that he “did not think about this” –- also 19 was insufficient to compel the conclusion that his testimony 20 was credible. Id. 21 Given the demeanor findings and the inconsistencies and 22 omissions relating to the practice of Christianity and sole 23
4allegation of past harm, the “totality of the circumstances” 1 supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. 2 See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. As all of Wang’s claims 3 share the same factual predicate, the adverse credibility 4 determination is dispositive. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 5 F.3d 148, 155-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 14
FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18

5