09 -5098 -ag

Yan v. Holder BIA Schopper t, IJ A099 026 125 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE 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 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 1 0 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 1 1 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 1 3 No. A099 026 125 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2008). We 1 4 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 5 and procedural history of the case. 1 6 “Where the BIA adopts an IJ’s decision, we review the 1 7 IJ’s factual findings, including adverse credibility 1 8 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, 1 9 treating them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable 2 0 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary.’” Corovic v. Mukasey , 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2 2 2008), quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Shu Wen 2 3 Sun v. BIA , 510 F.3d 377, 380 (2d Cir. 2007) (“we undertake3 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, 1 0 birth order, and birth dates of her two children, and she 1 1 has offered only incredible explanations for those 1 2 inconsistencies; and (3) she admitted at her hearing that 1 3 she lied to immigration officials, giving yet another 1 4 conflicting account of her children’s gender to avoid 1 5 removal. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 166-167 1 6 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, a reasonable factfinder would not 1 7 have been compelled to credit her explanations for the 1 8 inconsistency and falsehood. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 1 9 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, the IJ’s 2 0 unchallenged finding that Yan failed to provide adequate 2 1 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her otherwise 2 2 incredible testimony provides further support for the IJ’s4 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 1 0 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 1 2 FOR THE COURT: 1 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 1 4