15-3215 

Wang v. Sessions 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A200 181 440

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.

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

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

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

5th 4 day of September, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 SHI BO WANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-3215 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Peter Zhang, New York, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

26 Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. 

27 McManus, Assistant Director; Rachel 

28 L. Browning, Trial Attorney, Office 

29 of Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Shi Bo Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s 

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 4, 2015, decision of 

7 the BIA affirming a September 19, 2013, decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for asylum, 

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Shi Bo Wang, No. A200 181 440 (B.I.A. 

11 May 4, 2015), aff’g No. A200 181 440 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 

12 19, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 

17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 

20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

22 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the 
3 

1 applicant . . . , the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s 

2 . . . account, the consistency between the applicant’s . . . 

3 written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 

4 of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements 

5 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether 

6 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart 

7 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 

8 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

9 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 

10 that Wang was not credible. The IJ reasonably relied on Wang’s 

11 demeanor, finding that he was hesitant and often asked for 

12 questions to be repeated when those questions veered from what 

13 appeared to be a memorized script. See 8 U.S.C. 

14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 

15 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record. The 

16 demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are 

17 bolstered by record inconsistencies regarding how many times 

18 Chinese officials looked for Wang at his mother’s house, whether 

19 his mother treated his injuries after his release from 

20 detention, whether his cousin told him about asylum in the 

21 United States, and how he is related to his cousin. See Li Hua 

22 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); 
4 

1 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Wang did not provide 

2 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 

3 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80 (“A petitioner must do more than offer 

4 a ‘plausible’ explanation for his inconsistent statements to 

5 secure relief; ‘he must demonstrate that a reasonable 

6 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.’” 

7 (quoting Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 76 (2d Cir. 

8 2004))). 

9 Having questioned Wang’s credibility, the agency 

10 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 

11 claim with corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to 

12 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 

13 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 

14 applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already 

15 been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 

16 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did not err in affording 

17 limited weight to Wang’s mother’s letter because it was out of 

18 date; in addition, the letter “was submitted by an interested 

19 witness.” See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). 

20 Moreover, her letter did not clarify or rehabilitate Wang’s 

21 inconsistent testimony regarding how many times police had come 

22 to her house looking for him. Wang failed to submit statements 
5 

1 from his three siblings despite their alleged knowledge of the 

2 events underlying his asylum claim. 

3 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of 

4 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 

5 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 

6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of 

7 Wang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 

8 because all three claims are based on the same factual 

9 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 

10 2006). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

18 34.1(b). 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk