09-5098-ag

Yan v. Holder

BIA

Schoppert, IJ

A099 026 125

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 19 day of January, two thousand eleven. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 REENA RAGGI,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH,

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _______________________________________

12

13 LAN YAN,

14

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 09-5098-ag

18 NAC

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21

22 Respondent.

23 ______________________________________

24

25 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Law Office of

26 Gerald Karikari, P.C., New York, New

27 York.

28

29 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

30 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant

31 Director; Anthony C. Payne, Senior

32 Litigation Counsel, Office of

33 Immigration Litigation, Civil

34 Division, U.S. Department of

35 Justice, Washington, D.C.
2

1

2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

5 is DENIED.

6 Petitioner, Lan Yan, a native and citizen of the

7 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 18,

8 2009, order of the BIA affirming the March 12, 2008,

9 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert

10 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,

11 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

12 re Lan Yan, No. A099 026 125 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2009), aff’g

13 No. A099 026 125 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2008). We

14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

15 and procedural history of the case.

16 “Where the BIA adopts an IJ’s decision, we review the

17 IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility

18 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard,

19 treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable

20 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

21 contrary.’” Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.

22 2008), quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen

23 Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 380 (2d Cir. 2007) (“we undertake
3

1 a highly deferential review of the IJ’s findings,” including

2 adverse credibility determnations (internal quotation marks omitted))

3 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

4 credibility determination. The IJ reasonably found Yan not

5 credible because: (1) her testimony that she was detained

6 for three days was contradicted by her asylum application in

7 which she indicated that she had never been detained; (2) in

8 her credible fear interview, her application, and her

9 testimony, she gave conflicting accounts of the gender,

10 birth order, and birth dates of her two children, and she

11 has offered only incredible explanations for those

12 inconsistencies; and (3) she admitted at her hearing that

13 she lied to immigration officials, giving yet another

14 conflicting account of her children’s gender to avoid

15 removal. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166-167

16 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, a reasonable factfinder would not

17 have been compelled to credit her explanations for the

18 inconsistency and falsehood. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430

19 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, the IJ’s

20 unchallenged finding that Yan failed to provide adequate

21 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her otherwise

22 incredible testimony provides further support for the IJ’s
4

1 adverse credibility determination. See Biao Yang v.

2 Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 

3 The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was fatal to

4 her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

5 relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir.

6 2006). 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

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

9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

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

11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

12 FOR THE COURT:

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

14