11-260-ag Zhu v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A088 926 170 

### 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 23 rd** **day of November, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **SHUI MEI ZHU,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-260-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael** 23 **Brown, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant** 27 **Director; Virginia Lum, Trial** 28 **Attorney, Office of Immigration** 29 **Litigation, Civil Division, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 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 Shui Mei Zhu, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of a January 6, 2011 order of the BIA affirming 6 the November 4, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 7 Javier Balasquide denying Zhu’s application for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Shui Mei Zhu, No. A088 926 10 170 (B.I.A. Jan. 6, 2011), aff’gNo. A088 926 170 (Immig. 11 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 4, 2009). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 in this case. 14 The applicable standards of review are 15 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng 16 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 17 For asylum applications, such as this one, governed by 18 the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of 19 the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum 20 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” and 21 inconsistencies in his or her statements, without regard to 223 whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As the agency found, Zhu was 2 inconsistent and vague regarding her time line and travel 3 itinerary from China to the United States. She was also 4 inconsistent regarding the length of her employment in the 5 United States and her claim that she had only one passport 6 was contradicted by evidence that she had two. Zhu argues 7 that these inconsistencies are not sufficient to support an 8 adverse credibility determination because they are wholly 9 unrelated to her asylum claim. However, under the REAL ID 10 Act, an adverse credibility determination need not be based 11 on inconsistencies that “go to the heart of the claim,” 12 rather, the determination may be made based on any 13 inconsistency. Xiu Xia Linv. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 162 (2d 14 Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, Zhu’s 15 testimony was in some respects contradicted by documentary 16 evidence and by the testimony of her own witness. 17 Accordingly, given the multiple inconsistencies between 18 Zhu’s hearing testimony and other statements and evidence, 19 the agency did not err in concluding that she was not 20 credible. 21 Together, the problems the agency identified in Zhu’s 22 testimony and statements, and her failure to provide 234 sufficient corroboration, provide substantial evidence to 1 support its adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 13 14 15