19

- 1714 Jia

- Tao v. Wilkinson BIA Segal, IJ A206 429 050 

### 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 OR**  **DER 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 **2 n**  **d day of**  **M a**  **r c**  **h , two thousand twenty** 

**- one.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOS É**  **A. CABRANES,** 7 **SU SAN L. CARNEY,**  8 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **WENG JIA -**  **TAO,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 19** 

**- 1714**  16 **NAC** 17 **ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent .**  **1** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** John Son Yong, Esq. 23 New York, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 27 Director; Joseph D. Hardy, Trial 28

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent.Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6
Board of Immigration Appeals ( “ BIA ” ) decision, it is hereby 7
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 8

DENIED. 9
Petitioner Weng Jia

- Tao, a native and citizen of t he 10

People ’ s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 28, 2019 , 11
decision of the BIA affirming a January 10, 2018 , decision of 12
an Immigration Judge ( “ IJ ” ) denying Jia

- Tao ’ s application for 13
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14
Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ). In re Weng Jia

- Tao , No. A206 429 050 15

(B.I.A. May 28, 2019), aff ’ g No. A206 429 050 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 16
Jan. 10, 2018). We assume the parties ’ familiarity with the 17
underlying facts and procedural history. 18

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and 19
the BIA’s opinions under the substantial evidence standard. 20

See Wangchuck v. DHS , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006); see 21

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 22
67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 23

circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 24
base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 25
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 263 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 1

statement, [and] the consistency of such stat ements with other 2

evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an 3
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 4
the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We 5
defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination u nless, from 6
the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 7

reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility 8
ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 9

2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial 10

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jia

- Tao was 11
not credible as to his claim that police detained and beat him 12
for practicing Christianity. 13
The IJ reasonably relied on Jia

- Tao’s inconsistent 14
statements about how many times he was arrested. See 8 U. S.C. 15

§ 1 158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Jia

- Tao’s statements throughout the 16
proceedings varied as to whether he was arrested once or twice. 17
This inconsistency provides substantial evidence for the 18
adverse credibility determination because it relates to the 19

sole alleg ation of past persecution. See Xian Tuan Ye v. DHS , 20
446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that “material 21
inconsistency in an aspect of . . . [applicant’s] story that 22
served as an example of the very persecution from which he sought 234 asylum . . . afford ed substantial evidence to support the 1
adverse credibility finding” (internal quotation marks 2
omitted)). The agency was not required to credit Jia

- Tao’s 3
retractions of the inconsistent statements as they did not 4
resolve the inconsistency, which was repeat ed throughout the 5
proceedings. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 6
2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible 7
explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; 8

he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

- finder would be 9

compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks 10

omitted)). 11
The adverse credibility determination is bolstered by a 12
second inconsistency: his and his wife’s written statements 13
reflected that they began considering him leaving China befor e 14
his arrest, but he testified and confirmed that they did not 15
discuss him leaving until after his arrest. See Likai Gao v. 16

Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single 17
inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ 18

was comp elled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies 19

would so preclude even more forcefully.”). The IJ was 20
justified in rejecting Jia

- Tao’s varied explanations for this 21
inconsistency. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. The adverse 22
credibility determination is dispositive because asylum, 235 withholding of removal, and CAT relief are based on the same 1
factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 2

(2d Cir. 2006). 3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 5

stays VACATED. 6

FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 8 Clerk of Court 9