09-1083-ag

Wang v. Holder

BIA

Lamb, IJ

A097 663 623

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 4 day of March, two thousand ten. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 ______________________________________

12

13 YA LING L. WANG,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 09-1083-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, New York, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

26 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior

27 Litigation Counsel; Andrew N.

28 O’Malley, Trial Attorney, Office of

29 Immigration Litigation, United

30 States Department of Justice,

31 Washington, D.C.
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Ya Ling L. Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s

6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 13, 2009, order

7 of the BIA affirming the March 8, 2007, decision of

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb, which denied

9 Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

11 Ya Ling L. Wang, No. A097 663 623 (BIA Mar. 13, 2009), aff’g

12 No. A097 663 623 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 2007). We

13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

14 and procedural history in this case.

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

16 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

18 applicable standards of review are well-established. 

19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

20 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).

21 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

22 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
3

1 167. The IJ found Wang not credible based on: (1) her

2 inconsistent testimony regarding where police allegedly

3 found a list of persons, including Wang, who distributed

4 Falun Gong flyers; (2) her hesitation and confusion in

5 answering questions throughout her testimony; and (3) her

6 deficient corroboration of her claim that she practices

7 Falun Gong in the United States. The BIA further noted that

8 the affidavit from Wang’s father omitted Wang’s claim that

9 officials found Falun Gong materials while searching her

10 parents’ home. In her brief, Wang argues that the adverse

11 credibility determination was based on the BIA’s

12 identification of one minor omission. But this argument

13 ignores several of the IJ’s findings which stand as valid

14 bases for her adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu

15 Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2008). 

16 Moreover, the IJ reasonably declined to afford evidentiary

17 weight to the photographs Wang submitted depicting her

18 allegedly practicing Falun Gong. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.

19 Dep’t Of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (holding that the weight

20 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration

21 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the IJ). 

22 Finally, we defer to the IJ’s assessment of Wang’s demeanor. 
4

1 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 

2 Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility

3 determination was supported by substantial evidence. 

4 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B). Because

5 Wang’s claims were all based on the same factual predicate,

6 the agency’s denial of her application for asylum,

7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper. See Paul

8 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

19

20

21