15-3765 

Ji v. Yates 

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A200 177 815 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

AMENDED 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 

23rd 4 day of January , two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 REENA RAGGI, 

9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 YONGBIAO JI, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-3765 

17 NAC 

18 SALLY Q. YATES, ACTING UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent*. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, 

24 N.Y. 

25 

26 

 

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), 

Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates is automatically 

substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as 

Respondent. 
2 

1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

2 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 

3 Hogan, Assistant Director; Robbin K. 

4 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 

5 Immigration Litigation, United 

6 States Department of Justice, 

7 Washington, D.C. 

8 

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

12 DENIED. 

13 Petitioner Yongbiao Ji, a native and citizen of the 

14 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 30, 2015 

15 decision of the BIA affirming a May 21, 2014 decision of an 

16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ji’s application for asylum, 

17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

18 Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongbiao Ji, No. A200 177 815 (B.I.A. 

19 Oct. 30, 2015), aff’g No. A200 177 815 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 

20 21, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

21 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

22 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 

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

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

25 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

26 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 

27 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, 
3 

1 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a 

2 credibility finding on inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s 

3 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 

4 whether” those inconsistencies go “to the heart of the 

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

6 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the 

7 agency’s determination that Ji was not credible as to his claim 

8 that the Chinese government arrested and beat him in February 

9 2010 for protesting the demolition of his apartment building 

10 without just compensation. 

11 The agency reasonably relied on Ji’s inability to testify 

12 consistently regarding whether the Chinese government’s 

13 demolition of his apartment rendered it un-inhabitable in 

14 February or July 2010. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. 

15 Ji did not provide a compelling explanation for his inconsistent 

16 testimony in this regard. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 

17 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, his documentary evidence was 

18 similarly inconsistent. A letter from apartment residents 

19 stated that the apartment building was left in ruins in February 

20 2010, while Ji’s written statement asserted that the apartment 

21 building became un-inhabitable a few months later. 

22 Furthermore, Ji’s testimony was inconsistent regarding 

23 whether he engaged in protest activities between March 2009, 
4 

1 when he learned of the plan to demolish the apartment building, 

2 and February 2010, when the demolition allegedly occurred. See 

3 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. 

4 Having questioned Ji’s credibility, the agency reasonably 

5 relied further on his failure to submit evidence to rehabilitate 

6 his testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 

7 (2d Cir. 2007). Ji failed to provide evidence that he owned 

8 his apartment or that the Chinese government offered him 

9 compensation for it. And the IJ was not compelled to credit 

10 Ji’s explanation that this evidence was destroyed when high 

11 pressure water hoses were used to evict residents, because he 

12 submitted other evidence that was in the apartment at the same 

13 time. See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

14 In light of these inconsistencies and the lack of 

15 corroboration, we conclude that the agency’s adverse 

16 credibility determination is supported by substantial 

17 evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 

18 F.3d at 165-66. That determination is dispositive of Ji’s 

19 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 

20 because all three claims are based on the same factual 

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

22 2006). Accordingly, we do not consider the agency’s 

23 alternative bases for denying relief. 
5 

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 34.1(b). 

9 FOR THE COURT: 

10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk