09 -2078 -ag

Chen v. Holder BIA Bukszpan,IJ A095 850 639 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22 day of January, two thousand ten. nd 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges . 11 12

_______________________________________ 13 14 MU LIN CHEN, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 09-2078-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent . 22

_______________________________________ 23 24 25 26 27 28 292 1 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New 2 York. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 5 General, Civil Division; Lyle D. 6 Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel; 7 Jeffrey L. Menkin, Trial Attorney, 8 Office of Immigration Litigation, 9 United States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, D.C. 11 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 5 is DENIED. 1 6 Mu Lin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 1 7 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 17, 2009 order 1 8 of the BIA, affirming the November 9, 2007 decision of 1 9 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna M. Bukszpan, which denied 2 0 his application for relief under the Convention Against 2 1 Torture (“CAT”). In re Mu Lin Chen , No. A095 850 639 2 2 (B.I.A. Apr. 17, 2009), aff’gNo. A095 850 639 (Immig. Ct. 2 3 N.Y. City Nov. 9, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity 2 4 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 2 5 case. 2 6 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 7 IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 2 8 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards3 1 of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 3 95 (2d Cir. 2008). 4 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was 5 supported by substantial evidence. We have held that an 6 adverse credibility finding may reasonably be based on the 7 applicant’s submission of false evidence in an asylum 8 proceeding. See Rui Ying Lin v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 127, 133 9 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing the maxim falsus in uno, falsus 10 in omnibus ). Here, it is undisputed that Chen filed an 1 1 asylum application that contained material 1 2 misrepresentations regarding the date and manner of his 1 3 entry into the United States. In addition, he offered both 1 4 his own testimony and that of a witness supporting these 1 5 false claims. The knowing filing of a false asylum 1 6 application casts a serious shadow on an applicant’s overall 1 7 credibility. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d 1 8 Cir. 2007). While applicants should be encouraged to recant 1 9 false statements and withdraw false applications, as Chen 2 0 did here, the agency is not required to overlook such 2 1 falsities in making its ultimate determination. Thus, the 2 2 IJ properly relied on the maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in4 1 omnibusin denying Chen’s CAT claim. See Siewe , 480 F.3d at 2 170 (relying on the maxim to find that once an IJ concludes 3 that a document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect 4 other documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that 5 depend for probative weight upon [the applicant’s] 6 veracity”); Rui Ying Lin , 445 F.3d at 133. We are 7 unpersuaded by Chen’s argument that his misrepresentations 8 regarding his entry to this country are ancillary to his CAT 9 claim and thus an impermissible basis for the denial of that 1 0 relief. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 184-85 1 1 (2d Cir. 2004). To the contrary, falsehoods regarding 1 2 Chen’s entry to this country surely relate to his claims 1 3 concerning his exit from China. Even if the two bore no 1 4 relation, the IJ was still permitted to deem the balance of 1 5 Chen’s uncorroborated testimony false. See Siewe, 480 F.3d 1 6 at 170-71 (finding that even ancillary falsehoods may 1 7 support the application of falsus in uno ). Having found no 1 8 error in the IJ’s credibility determination, we need not 1 9 reach her alternative burden of proof finding.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 20 2 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition5 1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 8 9 10