15-3721 

Zhang v. Sessions 

BIA 

Christensen, IJ 

A205 442 849 

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. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

10th 4 day of April, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 SHAOQIANG ZHANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-3721 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Yongbing Zhang, Law Offices 

24 of Yongbing Zhang, Chicago, 

25 IL. 

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

28 Deputy Assistant Attorney 

29 General; Linda S. Wernery, 

30 Assistant Director; William 

31 C. Minick, Trial Attorney; 
2 

1 Office of Immigration 

2 Litigation, U.S. Department 

3 of Justice, Washington, DC. 

4 

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

8 DENIED. 

9 Petitioner Shaoqiang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, 

10 seeks review of an October 20, 2015, decision of the BIA 

11 affirming a May 2, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

12 denying Zhang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

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

14 re Shaoqiang Zhang, No. A205 442 849 (B.I.A. Oct. 20, 2015), 

15 aff’g No. A205 442 849 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 2, 2014). We 

16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

17 procedural history in this case. 

18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

19 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 

20 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 

21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

22 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

23 For asylum applications like Zhang’s, governed by the REAL 

24 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 

25 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum 
3 

1 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 

2 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his 

3 statements, “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies 

4 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

6 “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, 

7 from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 

8 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

9 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Further, “[a] 

10 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for 

11 his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

12 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 

13 to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 

14 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). For 

15 the reasons that follow, we conclude that substantial evidence 

16 supports the agency’s finding that Zhang was not credible. 

17 First, the agency reasonably based the credibility 

18 determination on the omissions from Zhang’s application 

19 concerning his guarantee statement and reporting requirement. 

20 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-68; see also id. at 166 n.3 (“An 

21 inconsistency and an omission are . . . functionally equivalent” 

22 for credibility purposes). Zhang testified that he signed a 

23 guarantee statement in which he promised to report to the police 
4 

1 station, that he reported to the police once a month for eight 

2 months, and that the police continue to threaten his family 

3 members for his failure to report. Zhang’s application, 

4 however, omitted any reference to the guarantee statement, his 

5 reporting requirement, or the police’s threats. The IJ was not 

6 compelled to credit Zhang’s explanation for these omissions. 

7 See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

8 Second, the agency reasonably based the credibility 

9 determination on the omission from Zhang’s wife’s letters that 

10 the police had threatened her for Zhang’s failure to report. 

11 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (explaining that omission of 

12 fact from family member’s letter “could have reasonably 

13 convinced the IJ that [the] story of persecution was 

14 fabricated”). Zhang testified that the people who called his 

15 wife identified themselves as being from the “South City Public 

16 Security Bureau.” Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 91. 

17 However, Zhang’s wife’s first letter makes no mention of 

18 threatening calls, and her second letter states that the calls 

19 were from “stranger[s].” A.R. 107. The IJ was not required 

20 to accept Zhang’s explanation that his wife referred to the 

21 callers as strangers because she did not know them personally. 

22 See Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80.
5 

1 Third, the agency reasonably based the credibility finding 

2 on the omission from Zhang’s mother’s letter that the family 

3 had been threatened by the police due to Zhang’s failure to 

4 report. Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Zhang’s mother’s letter 

5 does not mention threats; however, Zhang testified that the 

6 police had made threatening calls to his “family members.” 

7 A.R. 78. Zhang does not challenge the agency’s reliance on this 

8 omission on appeal. 

9 Finally, the adverse credibility determination was 

10 properly based on the inconsistency between Zhang’s testimony 

11 and evidence about whether Zheng, or anyone in his family, had 

12 kept in touch with his friend who owned the Falun Gong books 

13 found in Zhang’s home. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. 

14 Zhang testified that neither he nor his family has had recent 

15 contact with the friend. However, Zhang submitted a letter 

16 from the friend in support of his application. When confronted 

17 with this discrepancy, Zhang testified that his wife obtained 

18 the letter through the friend’s family. The IJ reasonably 

19 found Zhang’s testimony and supporting evidence inconsistent, 

20 and he was not compelled to accept Zhang’s corresponding 

21 explanation. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 

22 2007) (“Decisions as to . . . which of competing inferences to 

23 draw are entirely within the province of the trier of fact.” 
6 

1 (alteration in original) (quoting Palazzo ex rel Delmage v. 

2 Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 2000))); Majidi, 430 F.3d at 

3 80. 

4 Given the foregoing omission and inconsistency findings, 

5 the totality of the circumstances supports the adverse 

6 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. 

7 That determination is dispositive of Zhang’s claims for asylum, 

8 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims 

9 are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 

10 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

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

13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

18 34.1(b). 

19 FOR THE COURT: 

20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk