10-2711-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Morace, IJ A089 008 816 

### 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 9 th** **day of September, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **MAN LI CHEN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-2711-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, New York, New** 23 **York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Kathryn M.** 28 **McKinney, Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, United** 30 **States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington D.C.** 322 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 Man Li Chen, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of the June 9, 2010, decision of the BIA 6 affirming the June 25, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge 7 (“IJ”) Philip Morace denying his application for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 9 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Man Li Chen , No. A089 008 10 816 (B.I.A. June 9, 2010), aff’gNo. A089 008 816 (Immig. 11 Ct. N.Y. City June 25, 2008). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 of this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. 15 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007). 16 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 17
See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 19 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 20 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). We “defer to an IJ’s 21 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 223 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 1 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia 2 Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. For asylum applications governed 3 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the 4 totality of the circumstances, . . . base a credibility 5 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 6 the applicant . . ., the consistency between the applicant’s 7 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . without 8 regard to whether an inconsistency goes to the heart of the 9 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 10 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 11 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse 12 credibility determination. In finding Chen not credible, 13 the IJ reasonably relied in part on Chen’s confused demeanor 14 while testifying during cross-examination. See8 U.S.C. 15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 16 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ’s demeanor finding was 17 further supported by specific examples of contradictory 18 testimony. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 19 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, as the IJ found, Chen 20 testified inconsistently regarding the length of time he 21 remained in hiding following his release from detention. 224 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 1 F.3d at 166-67. Moreover, a reasonable fact finder would 2 not be compelled to credit Chen’s explanations for his 3 inconsistent statements. See Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80-81. 4 Thus, we find no error in the IJ’s denial of Chen’s 5 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 6 relief on credibility grounds. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 7 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 16
FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18 19 20 21