13-3177 Zhang v. Lynch BIA Zagzoug, IJ A087 468 163 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 27 th** **day of January, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **BAOZHU ZHANG, AKA MEIHUA ZHANG,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 13-3177** 17 **NAC** 18 **Loretta E. Lynch, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, New York, NY.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Lindsay B. Glauner, Senior** 28 **Litigation Counsel; Gregory M.** 29**Kelch, Trial Attorney, Office of** 1 **Immigration Litigation, United** 2 **States Department of Justice,** 3 **Washington, D.C.** 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 8 is DENIED. 9 Baozhu Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 10 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 30, 2013, decision 11 of the BIA affirming the November 22, 2011, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Baozhu Zhang, No. A087 468 15 163 (B.I.A. July 30, 2013),aff’gNo. A087 468 163 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 22, 2011). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 18 in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 21
v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See8 23 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 24 (2d Cir. 2009). 25

2For asylum applications like Zhang’s, governed by the 1 REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the 2 totality of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding 3 on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or 4 responsiveness,” the plausibility of her account, and 5 inconsistencies in her statements, without regard to whether 6 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” so long as 7 they reasonably support an inference that the applicant is 8 not credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu 9 Xia Lin v. Mukasey,534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 10 curiam). “An inconsistency and an omission are, for these 11 purposes, functionally equivalent.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 12 at 166 n.3. We defer “to an IJ’s credibility determination 13 unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain 14 that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 15 credibility ruling.” Id . at 167. In this case, the agency 16 reasonably based its adverse credibility determination on 17 Zhang’s vague and non-responsive testimony, an omission 18 from, and an inconsistency in, her testimony, and her lack 19 of corroboration. 20 The basis for Zhang’s claimed fear of persecution was 21 that she had been a member of the Chinese Freedom Democratic 22

3Party in the United States since August 2010, and had been 1 so active – attending party movements and publishing 2 articles on the party’s website – that a year later local 3 police from her village in China threatened her parents. 4 Zhang testified that she attended weekly Democracy Party 5 classes, had attended protests against the Chinese 6 government at least ten times, and on at least one occasion 7 had spoken at a protest. However, in response to direct 8 questions regarding what the protests were about, what the 9 participants said, and what she said in her remarks, Zhang 10 could not answer with particularity. See Rizal v. Gonzales , 11 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (there are “instances in 12 which the nature of an individual applicant’s account would 13 render his lack of a certain degree of doctrinal knowledge 14 suspect”). 15 In response to being asked the full official name of 16 the party of which she was a member, Zhang replied that it 17 was called “the Democracy Party,” whereas in her written 18 statement she stated that she was a member of the “Chinese 19 Freedom Democratic Party.” Additionally, Zhang could not 20 name any party officials other than “Chairman Ni.” When 21 asked why, Zhang explained that she could not read or write 22

4in Chinese or English, and the statement she filed in 1 support of her claim, written in Chinese and signed by her, 2 was actually written by her husband, although she dictated 3 it to him. 4 Zhang submitted a “Certificate of Appointment,” signed 5 by Chairman Ni, stating that Zhang had been appointed as the 6 Woman Division Clerk for The Party of Freedom and Democracy 7 in China. However, Zhang did not mention this role when 8 testifying as to her activities in the party. The IJ 9 reasonably concluded that Zhang’s failure to mention that 10 she had an official appointment within the party was a 11 significant omission. 12 Moreover, the IJ reasonably concluded that the 13 testimony of Chairman Ni, although generally credible, did 14 not sufficiently rehabilitate Zhang’s claim because he did 15 not testify as to the contents of her speech at the 16 consulate or the articles she published on the party 17 website. The IJ also reasonably concluded that Zhang’s 18 husband’s failure to testify on her behalf further called 19 into doubt her claim because Chairman Ni testified that 20 Zhang’s husband wrote her articles (because she is 21 illiterate) and Zhang herself testified that she dictated 22 her statement regarding her asylum claim to her husband, and 23 5he wrote it for her. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 1 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007)(“An applicant’s failure to 2 corroborate . . . testimony may bear on credibility, because 3 the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant 4 unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been 5 called into question.”). 6 Accordingly, the totality of the circumstances supports 7 the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. 9 Because the only evidence of a threat to Zhang’s life or 10 freedom depended upon her credibility, the finding 11 necessarily precludes success on Zhang’s claims for asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. 13 Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 18

19

20

21

22

23 6this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 2 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 3 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 4
FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7 8 9

7