09 -10 83 -ag

Wa ng v. Holder BIA Lam b, IJ A097 663 623 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERA L 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 1 0 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 11 Ya Ling L. Wang, No. A097 663 623 (BIA Mar. 13, 2009), aff’g 1 2 No. A097 663 623 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 2007). We 1 3 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 4 and procedural history in this case. 1 5 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 1 6 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 17 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 1 8 applicable standards of review are well-established. 19 See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 2 0 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 2 2 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at3 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 1 0 parents’ home. In her brief, Wang argues that the adverse 1 1 credibility determination was based on the BIA’s 1 2 identification of one minor omission. But this argument 1 3 ignores several of the IJ’s findings which stand as valid 1 4 bases for her adverse credibility determination. See Shunfu 15 Li v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 141, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2008). 1 6 Moreover, the IJ reasonably declined to afford evidentiary 1 7 weight to the photographs Wang submitted depicting her 1 8 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 2 0 afforded to the applicant’s evidence in immigration 2 1 proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the IJ). 2 2 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 1 0 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 1 7 FOR THE COURT: 1 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19 20 21