10-4213-ag Wang v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A088 377 970 

## 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 22 **nd** 

### day of November, two thousand eleven. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 7 

### ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 

### DENNY CHIN, 9 

### Circuit Judges **.** 10



### ______________________________________ 11 12 

### YU WANG WANG, 13 

### Petitioner **,** 14 15 

### v. **10-4213-ag** 16 

### NAC 17 

### ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 18 

### ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 

### Respondent **.** 20



### ______________________________________ 21 22 

### FOR PETITIONER: **Lee Ratner, New York, New York** 23 24 

### FOR RESPONDENT: **Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 25 

### General; Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., 26 

### Assistant Director; Kate D. Balaban, 27 

### Office of Immigration Litigation, 28 

### United States Department of Justice, 29 

### Washington, D.C. 30

### 2 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 DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 4 

### Yu Wang Wang, a native and citizen of China, seeks 5 

### review of a September 28, 2010, order of the BIA affirming 6 

### the July 14, 2008, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), 7 

### which denied Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of 8 

### removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 

### (“CAT”). In re Yuwang Wang, No. A088 377 970 (B.I.A. Sept. 10 

### 28, 2010), aff’g No. A088 377 970 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 11 

### 14, 2008). 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 14 

### both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 15 

### completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 16 

### 2008) (per curiam). 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 

### Asylum – Pretermission 20 

### In pretermitting Wang’s asylum application as untimely, 21 

### the agency found that a receipt indicating that Wang stayed 22

### 3 in a hotel in China, dated March 2007, was insufficient 1 

### evidence that his June 2007 asylum application was filed 2 

### within one year of his entry into the United States. The IJ 3 

### found that this document was entitled to “very little 4 

### evidentiary weight,” noting that the receipt was: 5 

### (1) unauthenticated; (2) mailed to Wang after his arrival in 6 

### the United States; and (3) a tax receipt reflecting a 7 

### payment by the hotel to the tax bureau, which raised 8 

### questions as to why Wang’s name was on the receipt and how 9 

### he was able to obtain it. Wang argues that the IJ erred in 10 

### requiring authentication for the receipt because it is not 11 

### an official document but was “issued by a private business.” 12 

### Because this argument does not raise a question of law, as 13 

### it turns on the factual nature of the document, it is 14 

### outside the statutory ambit of our review. 8 U.S.C. 15 

### §§ 1158(a)(2)(B), 1252(a)(2)(D); Gui Yin Liu v. INS , 508 16 

### F.3d 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, the 17 

### petition is dismissed as to the denial of asylum. 18 

### Withholding of Removal 19 

### The agency’s adverse credibility determination is 20 

### supported by substantial evidence. Wang’s argument that the 21 

### determination was based on speculation and conjecture is 22

### 4 unavailing. The IJ found implausible Wang’s assertion that 1 

### although he publicly expressed his anger about China’s 2 

### family planning policy many times between 1997 and 2006, he 3 

### was not arrested or even confronted by the authorities until 4 

### 2006. Given Wang’s testimony that he spoke out against the 5 

### government in the crowded center of his village on many 6 

### occasions between 1997 and 2006, and his explanation that he 7 

### was not confronted by the authorities because no one 8 

### reported him, the IJ reasonably concluded that the testimony 9 

### was implausible when “viewed in the light of common sense 10 

### and ordinary experience.” Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 11 

### 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ also reasonably relied on 12 

### Wang’s failure to provide a detailed description of what he 13 

### said when allegedly condemning China’s family planning 14 

### policy, as the record supports the IJ’s observation that 15 

### Wang “gave very little in the way of details and specifics 16 

### as to what he expressed in opposition to the [family 17 

### planning] policy” other than “express[ing] anger and 18 

### curs[ing] the cadres.” See Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 19 

### F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) , overruled in part on other 20 

### grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 494 F.3d 21 

### 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). 22

23

### 5 In finding Wang not credible, the agency further relied 1 

### on two inconsistencies in his testimony. Wang testified 2 

### that he feared returning to China because he had “violated 3 

### [the] family planning policy.” As the IJ noted, however, 4 

### according to Wang’s earlier testimony, he did not violate 5 

### the policy, but waited the required four years after the 6 

### birth of his first child and was permitted by the family 7 

### planning authorities to have a second child. The IJ also 8 

### found that Wang was inconsistent as to the number of hours 9 

### he was held in detention, observing that although Wang 10 

### testified that he was taken into custody about 14 hours 11 

### before his release, he also stated that he was detained 12 

### “[a]bout a little over ten hours.” Although minor, this 13 

### inconsistency is supported by the record. See Siewe v. 14



### Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are 15 

### two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s 16 

### choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”) (quoting 17 

### Anderson v. Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). 18 

### Having found Wang not credible, the IJ reasonably noted 19 

### Wang’s lack of corroborative evidence. See Biao Yang v. 20



### Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Although Wang 21 

### argues that the IJ erred in giving little weight to a letter 22

### 6 from his wife, we have recognized that the weight afforded 1 

### to the applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies 2 

### largely within the discretion of the IJ. See Xiao Ji Chen 3 

### v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); 4



### Matter of H-L-H- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (B.I.A. 2010). 5 

### In sum, the IJ’s reasonable findings of implausibility, 6 

### inconsistencies, vagueness, and lack of corroboration, taken 7 

### together, adequately support the agency’s adverse 8 

### credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 9 

### F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 10 

### For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 

### DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. As we have completed 12 

### our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously 13 

### granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion 14 

### for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 15 

### Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 16 

### DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 17 

### Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 18



### FOR THE COURT: 19 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20 21 22