T he H on orabl e T ho m as J
. M eski l l , w ho w as a m em ber of t hi s panel and vo t ed w i t h t he m aj ori t y, passe d aw ay 1 fo llo w in g ar g u m e n t in th is c a s e . T h e ap p e a l is b e in g d e c id e d b y th e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e rs o f th e p a n e l, w h o ar e in a g re e m e n t. S ee 2 d C ir. In terim R
. 0
. 1 4 (b ). 1 06-0101

- ag S un v. B IA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Se pt em be r T er m, 200 7 (S ub mi tt ed : Se pt em be r 19 , 20 07 De ci de d: De ce mb er 12, 200 7) Docket No. 06-0101-ag S HU W EN S UN , Petitioner

, v. B O ARD OF I MMI GR AT I ON A PP EAL S ,

Responde nt. Be for e: M I NER and C AB RANES , Circuit Judges
. 1 AnIm migra ti onJu dge (“ IJ”) d enie d p et it io ne r’s cl ai m f

or as yl umas un ti me ly

an d d enie d his cl ai m f or wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val o n the me rit s. Th e B oa rdof I mmigr at io n A pp eals su mm ar

ily affirmed. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review pet itioner’s asylum claim. With regard to petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal, we conc lude that (1) the IJ’s adverse credibility determination w as based on substant ial evidence; and (2) even if the IJ had found petitioner credible, petitioner is ineligible for withholding of removal to the extent that his claim of persec ution is based on th e alle ge d fo rc edst er

ili za ti onof his wi fe an d his co us in
. The petition is dismissed insofar as it see ks review of petitioner’s asylum c laim, and denied in so fa r a s i t s ee ks re view o f pe ti ti on er ’s cl ai m f or wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val.T he IJ al so den i ed Sun ’ s a pp l i cat i on f or r el i ef und er t he C on venti on A gai nst T ort ure ( “C A T ”)
. Sun ’ s a pp eal 2 d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , r a i s e a n y a r g u me n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h i s c l a i m. Acc or di ng l y , we c ons i de r onl y hi s a r g um e nt s r e g a r di ng h is c la im s fo r a s y lu m an d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. S e e , e .g. , Y u eqin g Z ha n g v. G on za l

es , 426 F. 3d 540 , 541 n. 1 ( 2d Ci r . 2005 ) ( e x pl a i ni ng t ha t i s s ue s not s uf f i c i e nt l y a r g ue d i n t he br i e f s a r e c ons i de r e d wa i ve d a nd nor m a l l y wi l l not be a dd r e s s e d o n a p p e a l). 2 GARY J. YERMAN , New York, NY, for Petitioner. J OHN J. GAUPP , Assistant United Sta tes Att orney (David R. Dugas, Unites States A ttorney, Catherine M. Maraist, As si st an t U ni te d S ta te s A tt or ne y, on the brie f ) United States At torney’s Office for the Middle District of Lou is ia na , B at onRo uge , LA , for Responde nt . P ER C URI AM : Pe ti ti on er Sh u W enSu n s ee ks re view o f a n o rd er of I mmigr at

io n J ud ge (“ IJ”) Mic ha el

J. D’Angelo denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration 2 Ap pe al s ( “BI A”) s um ma ril y a ffi rm edth e I

J’s de ci si on . In re Shu We n Sun , No. A 95 462 484 (B.I.A. De c. 21, 200 5) , af

f’g No. A 95 462 484 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 9, 2 004). On appeal, petitioner argues that the IJ erred by (1) finding him to be not credible a nd (2) denying him the re lief he sought. For the
re as on s s ta te d b el ow , w e dis mi ss th e p or ti onof the pe ti ti onse ek in g review o f pe ti ti on er ’s as yl um cl ai m
an d d eny the po rt

io n o f the pe ti ti onse ek

in g review o f pe ti ti on er ’s cl ai m f or wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val. BA CKGRO UN D Pe ti ti on er is a n at ive an d c it iz enof the Pe op le ’s Re pu bl ic of C hi nawh o c laim s tha t h e a rri ve d i n th e U ni te d S ta te s o n o r a bo ut Augus t 2 0, 2 001
. On May 4, 2002, he filed an application for asylum and wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val, c laim in g pe rs ec ut io n b as edpr

im ar ily onth e alle ge d fo rc edst er ili za ti onof his wife under Chinese family-planning policies. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service subsequently c ommenced re moval proceedings against petitione r. At the removal he aring before the IJ, held on June 9, 2004, petitioner conceded re movability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. To support these c laims, petitioner offered as evidence his own testimony and certain corroborating3

do cu me nt s, no ne of w

hi chwe re pr op erly

au th en ti ca te d. Th e I J c on cl ud edth at

pe ti ti on er wa s l ac king incr edib ili ty

ba se d i n p ar t o n t

wo ob se rva ti on s. The first observation concerne d petitioner’s deme anor—namely, the fac t that he appeared to be “an evasive . . . and at times . . . non-responsive witness.” The se cond observation conce rned the existe nce of multiple discrepancies in the evidence tha t petitioner submit ted to the Immigration Court. For example, petitione r provided varying accounts of (1) the se quence of event s following his alleged
en co un te r w

ith l oc al fa mily pl an ni ng o ffi ci al s a nd(2) the ma nn er inwhic h h e o bt ai ne d fu nd s fo r his travel to the Unite d States. (3) He testified that his marriage was registered on Dec ember 11, 1991 but submitted a ma rriage certificate dat ed Octobe r 11, 1991. (4) The identificat ion numbers on the resident id en ti fic at io n c ar ds alle ge dly i ss ue d t o p et it io ne r a ndhi s w

ife di d n ot

ma tc h the id en ti fic at

io n n um be rs set forth on their household register doc ument. Finally, (5) the translation of the marriage certificat e pe ti ti on er ha d s ub mi tt edha d b ee n alt er edwi th“whi te -ou t. ” Th e I J fu rthe r n ot edth at

th e d oc um en ts pe ti ti on er

ha d s ub mi tt edto ve rif

y his wi fe ’s invo lu nt ary a bo rt

io n a ndst er

ili za ti onap pe ar ed“fr au dule nt .” Specifically, the IJ found that the issuance of a n “a bo rt

io n c er ti fic at e” to do cu me nt th e i nv ol un ta ry

ab or ti onan d s te ril

iz at io n o f pe ti ti on er ’s unemployed wife c onflicted with the United States D epartment of State Asylum Profile’s (“Asylum Profile”) explanation that any such c ertificate would be issued for a voluntary abortion as evidence for sick leave requests from work. The IJ also conc luded that the authenticit y of the official warning letter pe ti ti on er ha d s ub mi tt edwa s fa tally un de rc ut by th e A sy lu m P ro fil e’ s o bs er

va ti onth at

Chin es e f amily pl an ni ng o ffi ci al s d o n ot

is su e writ te n w ar ni ngs to in di vid uals wh o fa

il t o c om ply w

ith the on e c hild policy. In all, the IJ concluded that petitioner appea red to have bee n “testifying from a rehearsed script of eve nt s” a ndth at

hi s s to ry ap pe ar edto ha

ve be en“fa br

ic at ed .” Having determined that

petitioner’s evidence could not be credit ed, the IJ found that pet itioner4

ha d n ot me t his bu rd enof p ro of w ith r es pe ct

to any o f hi s c laim s fo r re lie f. W ith r es pe ct

to pe ti ti on er ’s asylum claim, the IJ made the further finding that, because petitioner had not de monstrated “by c lear
an d c onvin ci ng evid en ce ” tha t h e h aden te re d the Unit edSt at es le ss th anon e y ea r b ef or e f ili ng his
as yl um ap pl

ic at io n, pe ti ti on er ’s ap pl

ic at io n fo r a sy

lu m w as un ti me ly
. In re Shu We n Sun , N o. A 9 5 46 2 484(I mmig. Ct . H ar tf

or d J un e 9 , 20 04) . Pe ti ti on er ap pe al edto th e B IA , whi chaf fir me d the IJ’ s de ci si onwi th ou t o pi ni on . In re Shu Wen Sun , N o. A 9 5 46 2 48 4 ( B. I.A . D ec . 21 , 20 05)
. This pe ti ti onfor

re view f ollo we d.

DISCUSSION Wh enth e B IAis su es anop inio n tha t f ully ad op ts th e I

J’s de ci si on , w e r ev

iew the IJ’ s d ec is io n. Se e, e. g. , Chun Gao v. Gonzales

, 424 F.3d 1 22, 124 (2d Cir. 2 005). We review the agenc y’s factual findings, including adverse credibility dete rminations, under the substant ial evidence standa rd, treating them as “c on cl us ive unle ss any r ea so na bl e a dj udic at or wo ul d b e c om pe lle d t o c on cl ud e t o the co ntra ry .” 8 U.S .C . § 125 2(

b) (4 )( B)
. I. Asylum Appli cation Th e I J d enie d p et

it io ne r’s as yl umap pl

ic at io n u po n fi ndin g tha t ( 1) th e app lic at io n w as un ti me ly and (2) petit

ioner did not qualify for any exceptions to the statut ory filing deadline. We lack jurisdiction
to re view the se de te rm in at io ns . See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (placing agency det erminations as to the ti me lin es s o f a n a sy

lu m a pp lic at

io n b ey on d j udic ial review) ; see also Gui Yin Liu v. INS , No. 03-4803 -ag , — F. 3d— , 200 7 W

L 42 087 76, at

* 3 (2 d C ir. No v. 3 0, 2 007). Inad di ti on , while we do ha ve jurisdiction to review “constitut ional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), petit ioner has raised no such arguments in his brief. Accordingly, we m ust dismiss for lack of subject matte r jurisdiction the portion of his petition seeking to review the denial of his asylum claim by the IJ and the5

BI A. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 47 1 F. 3d315 , 32 9-3 0 ( 2dCi r. 2 006 ). II. Withholdin g of Removal: Adverse Credibility Find ing Petitioner challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility dete rmination on several grounds. First, he

co nt en ds th at

th e i nc on si st en ci es id en ti fie d b y the IJ a re ba se d o n mis ch ar ac te riz at io ns of his te st

im ony. Second, he argues that , even if his evidence was inconsist ent, the inconsist encies in question—for example, the discre pancy bet ween the identification numbers shown on the household register document as oppose d to the ident ification cards belonging to petitioner and his wife—do not constitute a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility det ermination. Finally, he asserts that the abortion and sterilization ce rtificates submitte d in support of his application for relief did not conflict with the St at e D ep ar tm en t A sy

lu m P ro fil es . W e f

in d p et it io ne r’s argum en ts un av ailing. In Xiao Ji Chen , w e n ot edth at “the [I mmigr at

io n a ndNa ti on al

it y A ct (“ IN A”)] tight

ly ci rc um sc rib es ou r review o f fa ctual fi ndin gs, in cl udin g a dv er se cr edib ili ty de te rm in at

io ns , b y a n I

J.” 471 F.3 d a t 3 33. Th er ef

or e, we un de rt ak e a

“highl y d ef er en ti al ” review o f the IJ’ s fi ndin gs, id. at 334 , “look[ing] to see if the IJ has provided specific, cogent reasons for the a dverse credibility finding and wh ethe r tho se re as on s b ea r ale git im at e n ex us to th e f

in di ng, ” id. (i nt er nal quo ta ti onma rks omit te d)
. Es se nt ially , o ur re view “ is de signe d t o e ns ur e m er ely tha t c re di bilit y f in di ngs ar e b as edup onne ithe r a mi ss ta te me nt

of the fa ct s i n the re co rdno r b al d s pe cula ti onor capr ic e, ” id. (i nt er nal quo ta ti onma rks
om it te d)
. As an initial matte r, we note tha t the IJ appears t o have misunderstood pet itioner’s testimony explanation of how he managed t o obtain the funds to pay for his passage to the United Stat es. That is, pe ti ti on er te st ifi edth at he ha d o bt ai ne d the mo ne y a ft er he ca me to th e U ni te d S ta te s, bu t the IJ understood petitione r to be claiming that he had raised this money w hile he was still in China. WeW e a l s o no t e t ha t ou r r e c e nt de c i s i on i n Z heng J i an C hen v. B IA , 4 6 1 F
. 3 d 1 5 3 (2d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) h as i n d icate d th at, 3 un de r c e r t a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s , a di s c r e pa nc y be t w e e n t he i de nt i f i c a t i on n um be r s s hown on d i ff e r e nt do c um e nt s m a y not ne c e s s a r i l y i ndi c a t e f

r a ud
. I n Z hen

g Jian C hen , w e o b s e rv e d th a t, alth o u g h th e p e titio n e r h a d p ro v id e d a s p e c ific e x p la n a tio n fo r th e d is c re p a n c y , 4 6 1 F .3 d at 1 5 6 , th e IJ h a d fa ile d to in v e s tig a te p e titio n e r’s e x p la n a tio n . Id
. a t 1 5 6
. Acc or di ng l y , we r e m a nde d f or f ur t he r f a c t
- f i ndi ng . H e r e , t he I

J di d n ot c onc l ud e t ha t t he di s c r e pa nc y was ba s e d o n f r a ud bu t m e r e l y not e d t ha t “ t he nu m be r s di ff e r . ” I n a dd i t i on, pe t i t i one r di d n ot of f e r a ny e x pl a na t i on f

or t he di scr epancy. A s s uch, t he IJ ca nn ot be sai d t o h ave e r r ed by fa i l i ng t o i nv est i gat e. 6 conclude that

petitioner’s remaining challenges to the IJ’s credibility determinat ion are without me rit. 3 No ne th el es s, ev enif w e w er e t o c on cl ud e tha t the IJ’ s r el ia nc e o n thi s o bs er

va ti onwa s e rro r, whic h w e d ec lin e t o d o, th at co nc lu si onwo ul d n ot

le adus to di stur b the IJ’ s o ve rall d ec is io n. This is because, eve n leaving aside this observation, “the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence and we are c onfident that the same decision would be
ma de inth e a bs en ce of the [alle ge d] de fic ie nc ie s. ” Xiao Ji Chen , 47 1 F. 3dat 336
. The IJ correctly not ed that pe titioner’s initial testimony as to his date of marriage conflicte d wi thth e d at e s ho wnonth e m ar riage do cu me nt th at pe ti ti on er su bm it te d t o the IJ. The IJ was also ju st ifi edinre ly

in g onth e dis cr ep an cy

be tw ee n the As yl umPro fil e, whic h s ta te s tha t C hi ne se fa mily pl an ni ng o ffi ci al s d o n ot

is su e writ te n w ar ni ngs to in di vid uals wh o fa

il t o c om ply w

ith the on e c hild po lic y, an d the do cu me nt

pe ti ti on er su bmit te d a s a n o ffi ci al

le tt er whic h c on ta

in edju st su cha w ar ni ng. Cf
. Tu Lin v. Gonzales

, 446 F.3d 3 95, 402 (2d Cir. 2 000) (“In reviewing credibility determinat ions, our
ro le is ge ne rally

to ev al ua te wh ethe r the fa ct -fi nd er ma de a r ea so na bl e d et er mi na ti onas to pe ti ti on er ’s
cr edib ili ty .”)
. Inad di ti on , the IJ’ s o pi ni onre fe rs sp ec ifi cally to se ve ral fi ndin gs c on ce rnin g pe ti ti on er ’s behavior and demeanor at the removal hearing. As we noted in Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice , 42 6 F. 3d 104 (2d Cir. 2005 ): We giv e p ar ti cula r d ef

er en ce to cr edib ili ty

de te rm in at

io ns th at ar e b as edonth e a dj udic at or ’s ob se rva ti onof the ap pl

ic an t’ s d em ea no r, i n r ec ognit io n o f the fa ct

th at th e I Js ab ili ty to ob se rve th e w itne ss ’s de me an or

pl ac es he r inth e b es t p os it io n t o e valu at e w

he th er ap pa re nt pr ob le ms in the witne ss’s testimony suggest a lac k of credibility or, rather, can be attributed to an innocent cause such as difficulty unde rstanding the question.8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(A ) p ro v id e s fo r w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l: 4 [T] he At t or ne y G e ne r a l m a y not r e m ov e a n a l i e n t o a c ou nt r y i f t he At t or ne y G e ne r a l de c i de s t ha t t he a l i e n’ s l i f e or f r e e dom woul d b e t hr e a t e ne d i n t ha t c ou nt r y be c a us e of t he a l i e n’ s r a c e , r e l i g i on, na t i ona l i t y , m e m be r s hi p i n a pa r t i c ul a r s oc i a l g r ou p, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 7 Id. at 113. Here, the IJ noted that petitione r was evasive and non-responsive in a manner that suggested untruthfulness, rather than ne rvousness or difficulty comprehending the procee dings. In accordance wi thou r p rio r c as e l aw , w e “ giv e p ar ti cula r d ef er en ce ” t o thi s fi ndin g. Id. Accordingly, we conc lude that the IJ provided sufficient reasons for his adverse credibility fin di ng a ndth at

th e r ec or d c on ta

in s s uff ic ie nt ev id en ce to su pp or t the se re as on s. III. Withholdin g of Removal based on the Alleged Forced Sterilization of Spouse Ev enif the IJ e rre d i n fi ndin g pe ti ti on er to be no n-c re di bl e, we ho ldth at pe ti ti on er is in el igi bl e for withholding of removal to the extent that his claim of persecut ion is based on the assert ed forced
st er ili za ti onof his alle ge d s po us e. Se e G ui Yi n L iu , — F. 3dat

— , 200 7 W

L 42 087 76, at

*5
. Ina s im ila r c as e, ou r C ou rt ha s r ec en tly h el d tha t a

wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val c laim ba se d s ol el y
onth e f or ce d s te ril

iz at io n o f pe ti ti on er ’s wi fe is “do om ed .” Gui Y in Li u , —F.3d at — , 2007 WL 420 877 6, a t * 5; cf. Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 2 96, 308 (2d Cir. 2 007) (en banc) (“[A]pplicants c an became candidates for asylum relief only base d on persecution tha t they themselves have suffered or must suffer.”). The text of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), the provision governing 4 withholding of removal, does not countenanc e a claim of “derivative persecut ion.” Like a claim for asylum, withholding of removal requires a showing of direct personal persec ution. A petitioner w ho ha s n ot “pe rs on ally

ex pe rie nc edpe rs ec ut

io n . . . o n apr ot ec te d gr ou nd ” is in el igi bl e t o o bt ai n wi th ho ldin g of

re mo val re lie f. Id. at 306. Therefore, petitioner cannot base his claim for withholding of r em ov al

onhi s w ife ’s alle ge d fo rc ib le ab or ti on . It is no t c le ar

wh ethe r p et

it io ne r als o b as es a c laim for re lie f onth e alle ge d s te ril

iz at io n o f hi sSun ar guabl y m ay have cl ai m ed pers ecut i on based on hi s ow n al l eged r esi st ence t o fam i l y pl ann i ng o ff i ci al s' 5 a t t e m pt s t o f

or c i bl y s t e r i l i z e hi s c ou s i n a nd t he r e s ul t i ng r e t a l i a t i on h e a l l e g e s f r om t ha t i nc i de nt . W e c onc l ud e t ha t t he f a c t ua l r e c or d wa s “ a de qu a t e l y de ve l ope d” on t hi s i s s ue a nd, a c c or di ng l y , hol d t ha t t he r e i s no ne e d f or a r e m a nd t o t he B I A
. C f. G u i Y in L iu , — F. 3d a t — , a t 1 1, 2 00 7 W L 4 20 87 76 , a t * 6 ( r e m a ndi ng t o t he BI A f or a de t e r m i na t i on o f w he t he r c e r t a i n c l a i m s of di r e c t pe r s e c ut i on r e qu i r e d m or e f a c t ua l de ve l opm e nt)
. Be c a us e we h a ve de t e r m i ne d t ha t t he I J d id n o t e rr in fin d in g p e titio n e r to b e n o t c re d ib le , an y c la im fo r re lie f o n th is b a s is is a ls o fo re c lo s e d
. 8 cousin. Such a claim would mee t with the same problems as one de rived from a spouse’s persecution and is, for the same reasons, foreclosed. 5

CONCLUSION For these reasons, the pe tition for review of the denial of asylum is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and the petit

ion for review of the withholding of removal claim is DE NI ED
.