16-3938 

Wu v. Sessions 

BIA 

Poczter, IJ 

A206 052 496/497

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 

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 23rd day of February, two thousand 

eighteen. 

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

PETER W. HALL, 

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

ZHONG WU, GUANGWEI LIU, 

 Petitioners, 

v. 16-3938 

 NAC 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Flushing, NY. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 

Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC. 
2 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is DENIED. 

 Petitioners Zhong Wu and Guangwei Liu, natives and 

citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of 

a November 3, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a 

February 4, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhong Wu, 

Guangwei Liu, Nos. A206 052 496/497 (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 2016), 

aff’g Nos. A206 052 496/497 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4, 

2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 

both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 

completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 

F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 

review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu 

Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 

 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 
3 

determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 

the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 

applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between 

the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 

statements . . . , [and] the internal consistency of each 

such statement . . . without regard to whether an 

inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart 

of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 

Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s determination that Wu and Liu were 

not credible as to their claim that Chinese officials 

detained and harmed Wu on account of his practice of 

Christianity nor as to their continuing practice of 

Christianity in the United States. 

 The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies 

regarding how often Liu attended religious gatherings with 

Wu in China, when Wu was baptized, why Liu had not attended 

Wu’s baptism, and how often Wu and Liu communicated during 

the time when Liu was on a work trip and Wu was purportedly 

detained, all of which called into question Wu’s practice 

of Christianity and detention in China, as well as how long 

they had worked in Syracuse, which called into question 
4 

their alleged attendance at church in New York City. See 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 

F.3d at 165-67. They did not provide compelling 

explanations for these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. 

Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner 

must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his 

inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be 

compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

 The agency also reasonably found it implausible that 

Liu, who lived with Wu and was aware that he had been 

beaten on his face, did not know that he also had been 

beaten on his chest and abdomen. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 

F.3d 63, 66-68 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing that an adverse 

credibility determination may be based on inherent 

implausibility in the applicant’s story if the “finding is 

tethered to record evidence” or based on common sense). 

Given the inconsistent and implausible testimony, the 

agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu 
5 

Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. That determination is 

dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

relief because all three claims are based on the same 

factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk