11-716-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Laforest, IJ A088 727 563 

### 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 3 rd** **day of May, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **YILEI WANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 11-716-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 **General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,** 26 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Ann M.** 27 **Welhaf, Trial Attorney, Office of** 28 **Immigration Litigation, Civil** 29 **Division, United States Department** 30 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 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 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Yilei Wang, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of a January 26, 2011 order of the BIA 6 affirming the June 29, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest denying Wang’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Yilei Wang, 10 No. A088 727 563 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2011), aff’gNo. A088 727 11 563 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 29, 2009). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 15 the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 16 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 17 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng 18 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 19 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 20 credibility determination. See Yanquin Weng, 562 F.3d at 21 513. Under the REAL ID Act, which applies to Wang’s 223 application for relief, “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency 1 or omission in making an adverse credibility determination 2 as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes 3 that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Xiu Xia Lin v. 4 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). 5 Here, multiple discrepancies between Wang’s testimony 6 and his supporting documentary evidence support the IJ’s 7 finding that Wang was not credible. Wang testified that he 8 fell, after running from Chinese family planning officials, 9 and sustained injuries to his right hand, left leg, and left 10 toe. However, the hospital certificate he submitted did not 11 mention these injuries, but instead stated that Wang 12 suffered entirely different injuries. Moreover, Wang 13 testified that he did not require surgery for his injuries, 14 yet he submitted a hospital receipt showing an “operation 15 fee”. As a result of his injuries, Wang testified, he spent 16 two months in the hospital. However, a letter from his wife 17 stated that he only spent ten days in the hospital. 18 The IJ may have erred in finding that a 2009 19 certificate showing a 1999 intrauterine device (“IUD”) 20 insertion (but not a 2005 insertion) contradicted Wang’s 21 testimony about his wife’s 2005 IUD insertion, as there was 224 no basis in the record to support the IJ’s apparent 1 assumption that the certificate would refer to both 2 procedures. However, any error in the IJ’s reliance on this 3 presumed discrepancy was harmless because the other 4 discrepancies the IJ identified constitute “ample, error5 free grounds that provide substantial evidence to support 6 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.” Singh v. BIA, 7 438 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 2006); see also8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 9 Wang’s explanations for the inconsistencies—that his 10 wife’s letter was inaccurate because of her lack of 11 education and that he, as a layman, could not know what his 12 “operation fee” was for—do not compel a different 13 conclusion. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 14 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a 15 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 16 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable 17 fact-finder would be compelledto credit his testimony.” 18 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Wang’s claims 19 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were all 20 based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse 21 credibility determination forecloses all relief. See Paul v. 22 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 235 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 2 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 3 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 4 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 5 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 6 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 7 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 8
FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12