14-3517 Chen v. Lynch BIA Rohan, IJ A089 113 632 

### 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**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **25 th**  **day of November, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **QUAN CHEN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-3517** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Michael Brown, Law Office of Michael 24 Brown, New York, New York. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Russell 28 J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation 292 Counsel; John D. Williams, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9

DENIED. 10 Petitioner Quan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 11 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 2, 2014, decision 12 of the BIA affirming an April 24, 2013, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chen’s application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 15 Torture (“CAT”). In re Quan Chen, No. A089 113 632 (B.I.A. Sep. 16 2, 2014), aff’g No. A089 113 632 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 24, 17 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 18 facts and procedural history in this case. 19

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS , 448 F.3d 524, 528 21 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 23 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 243 For asylum applications like Chen’s, governed by the REAL 1 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 2 circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the 3 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or 4 witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or 5 witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s 6 statements and other record evidence “without regard to 7 whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 9 In this case, the adverse credibility determination is 10 supported by substantial evidence. 11 Chen claimed that he was arrested, detained and beaten for 12 attending an underground Christian church in China. Chen 13 submitted a letter from a government-sponsored church in China 14 stating that he accepted Jesus Christ as savior on December 15, 15 2007. Chen did not mention attending a government-sponsored 16 church in his application. Chen testified that he began 17 attending the underground church on December 15, 2007, the same 18 day that his letter confirmed his attendance at the 19 government-sponsored church. When asked to explain, Chen 20 stated that he needed proof of his Christian faith and could 214 not obtain documentation from his underground church. The IJ 1 reasonably declined to credit Chen’s explanation. Majidi v. 2 Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, Chen could 3 not explain why a government-sponsored church would provide a 4 letter confirming his attendance on a specific date if he had 5 not, in fact, attended on that date. 6 The IJ also found that Chen gave inconsistent testimony as 7 to why he has not been baptized. Chen explained that: (1) he 8 was not prepared; (2) he claimed he had to first attend baptism 9 classes but could not because of work; and (3) he did not want 10 to. While the first two reasons are not inconsistent with one 11 another, the latter explanation contradicts the first two. Xiu 12 Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163-64. 13 The IJ also properly relied on Chen’s vague and 14 inconsistent testimony concerning his church attendance in the 15 United States. Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft , 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d 16 Cir. 2003), overruled in part on other g rounds by Shi Liang Lin 17 v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) (en 18 banc). First, Chen could not name th e pastor from his church 19 with whom Chen posed in a photograph he submitted. Second, Chen 20 testified that he attends church once every two to three weeks, 215 but then testified that he had not been in “a long time” because 1 the sermons are in English. He then changed his testimony, 2 stating that he stopped attending because he was bothered by 3 the church’s demands for donations. The IJ was not required 4 to credit Chen’s inconsistent explanations. Majidi , 430 F.3d 5 at 80-81. 6 Finally, the IJ relied on his observations of Chen’s 7 demeanor in finding him not credible. We generally afford 8 particular deference to an IJ’s assessment of an applicant’s 9 demeanor, especially when those observations are supported by 10 specific inconsistencies in the record. Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t 11 of Justice , 426 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2005); Li Hua Lin v. U.S. 12 Dep't of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). 13 Considering the foregoing, the IJ’s adverse credibility 14 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-66. This finding 16 was sufficient to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 17 relief, as all three claims were based on the same factual 18 predicate. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 19 2006) (withholding); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 20 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT). 216 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 2 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 3 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 4 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 5 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 6 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 7 34.1(b). 8

FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10