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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **5 th**  **day of September, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SHI BO WANG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-3215** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Peter Zhang, New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. 26 McManus, Assistant Director; Rachel 27 L. Browning, Trial Attorney, Office 28 of Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 312 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 is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Shi Bo Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 4, 2015, decision of 6 the BIA affirming a September 19, 2013, decision of an 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 9 Torture (“CAT”). In re Shi Bo Wang, No. A200 181 440 (B.I.A. 10 May 4, 2015), aff’g No. A200 181 440 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 11 19, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 14 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 15 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 16 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 17 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 18 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 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 the 223 applicant . . . , the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s 1 . . . account, the consistency between the applicant’s . . . 2 written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 3 of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements 4 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether 5 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart 6 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 7 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 8 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 9 that Wang was not credible. The IJ reasonably relied on Wang’s 10 demeanor, finding that he was hesitant and often asked for 11 questions to be repeated when those questions veered from what 12 appeared to be a memorized script. See 8 U.S.C. 13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 14 (2d Cir. 2005). That finding is supported by the record. The 15 demeanor finding and the overall credibility determination are 16 bolstered by record inconsistencies regarding how many times 17 Chinese officials looked for Wang at his mother’s house, whether 18 his mother treated his injuries after his release from 19 detention, whether his cousin told him about asylum in the 20 United States, and how he is related to his cousin. See Li Hua 21 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); 224 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Wang did not provide 1 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 2 Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80 (“A petitioner must do more than offer 3 a ‘plausible’ explanation for his inconsistent statements to 4 secure relief; ‘he must demonstrate that a reasonable 5 fact-finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.’” 6 (quoting Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS , 386 F.3d 66, 76 (2d Cir. 7 2004))). 8 Having questioned Wang’s credibility, the agency 9 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 10 claim with corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to 11 corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, 12 because the absence of corroboration in general makes an 13 applicant unable to rehabilitate te stimony that has already 14 been called into question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 15 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). The agency did not err in affording 16 limited weight to Wang’s mother’s letter because it was out of 17 date; in addition, the lette r “was submitted by an interested 18 witness.” See Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). 19 Moreover, her letter did not clarify or rehabilitate Wang’s 20 inconsistent testimony regarding how many times police had come 21 to her house looking for him. Wang failed to submit statements 225 from his three siblings despite their alleged knowledge of the 1 events underlying his asylum claim. 2 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of 3 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 4 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of 6 Wang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 7 because all three claims are based on the same factual 8 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 9 2006). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 17 34.1(b). 18

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