14-2114 Qiu v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 568 649 

### 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**  **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**  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 19 th** **day of May, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JIAN GUO QIU,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 14-2114** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1**  20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23

1 **Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted**  **for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the Respondent in this case.** **FOR PETITIONER:** Mouren Wu, New York, N.Y. 1 2 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting 3 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy 4 S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; 5 Catherine Bye, Trial Attorney, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 U.S. Department of Justice, 8 Washington, D.C. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Jian Guo Qiu, a native and citizen of the 15 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 3, 2014, 16 decision of the BIA affirming a September 10, 2012, decision 17 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Qiu’s application 18 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jian Guo Qiu, No. 20 A087 568 649 (B.I.A. June 3, 2014), aff’gNo. A087 568 649 21 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2012). We assume the 22 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 23 procedural history of this case. 24 25

2Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 1 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, excluding from 2 consideration the basis for denying relief that the BIA 3 rejected (that the asylum application was untimely). Xue 4 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 5 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 6 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 7 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency 8 may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base 9 a credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, the 10 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies within and 11 between his statements and otherrecord evidence “without 12 regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s 13 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 14 F.3d at 163-64. 15 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 16 determination that Qiu was not credible. The agency 17 reasonably relied on Qiu’s demeanor, noting that his 18 testimony was evasive and unresponsive at times. See 19 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales , 20

3430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency’s demeanor 1 finding and the overall credibility determination are 2 bolstered by record inconsistencies. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. 3 Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 4 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67. Qiu’s evidence was 5 inconsistent regarding, among other things, where his 6 parents were employed, when he learned the reason for his 7 arrest, and whether his witness attended the school where 8 his arrest occurred. Neither Qiu nor his witness provided 9 compelling explanations for those inconsistencies. See 10 Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 11 Having questioned Qiu’s credibility, the agency 12 reasonably relied further on his failure to provide certain 13 corroborating evidence. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 14 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). He did not provide a letter from 15 his ex-girlfriend who was with him at the time of his 16 arrest. A letter from his friend omitted any mention of his 17 arrest, detention, and beating, while the letter from his 18 mother failed to provide any details of those incidents, 19 stating only that Qui had been arrested. 20

4Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and corroboration 1 findings, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is 2 supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 3 F.3d at 164-67. That determination is dispositive of Qiu’s 4 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 5 See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7
DENIED. 8
FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10 11 12

5