16-3009 

Wang v. Sessions

BIA 

Sichel, IJ 

A200 749 579

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 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 2nd day of April, two thousand eighteen. 

PRESENT: 

Robert A. Katzmann, 

Chief Judge,

Guido Calabresi, 

Denny Chin, 

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

ZHIYONG WANG, 

Petitioner, 

v. 16-3009

 NAC 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Mouren Wu, Law Office of Mouren 

Wu, New York, NY. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; Terri J. 

Scadron, Assistant Director; Wendy 
2

Benner-León, Trial Attorney, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, 

United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is GRANTED. 

 Petitioner Zhiyong Wang, a native and citizen of the 

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 18, 

2016, decision of the BIA affirming a May 7, 2015, decision 

of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhiyong Wang, No. 

A 200 749 579 (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2016), aff’g No. A 200 749 579 

(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 7, 2015). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

in this case. 

 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 

the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 

2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 
3

165 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

 In making an adverse credibility determination, the 

agency may rely on inconsistencies and omissions in an asylum 

applicant’s statements and other record evidence; however, 

the “totality of the circumstances” must support the 

determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia 

Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. The IJ here based its adverse 

credibility determination on two omissions by Wang, one 

involving whether police officers “beat up” or “pushed” his 

mother, and another regarding whether the police summoned 

Wang for questioning after his two arrests. App. 3. These two 

omissions, however, are insufficient to establish an adverse 

credibility determination under the totality of the 

circumstances. Wang has submitted letters from his neighbor 

in China stating that he “was aware of [Wang’s] two arrests 

for practicing [Buddhism]” and that the police are continuing 

to “question[] for information about him,” id. at 82, a letter 

from his father stating that after Wang left China “the police 

never gave up looking for him,” id. at 84, and a letter from 

his cousin stating that Wang had been arrested twice in China 

for practicing Buddhism and that police “are still seeking 
4

his person,” id. at 86. The letters strongly support Wang’s 

claims, and there is no evidence in the record that the 

letters are false, fraudulent, or otherwise should not be 

believed. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a 

stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court