14-3763 

Yun v. Lynch 

BIA 

Nelson, IJ 

A087 531 701

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 

5th 4 day of October, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 

8 Chief Judge, 

9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 

10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________ 

13 

14 JIANG YUN, 

15 Petitioner, 

16 

17 v. 14-3763 

18 NAC 

19 

20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

22 Respondent. 

23 _____________________________________ 

24 

25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 

26 

27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

28 Assistant Attorney General; Steven 

29 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur 
2

1 Rabin, Trial Attorney; Lindsay G. 

2 Donahue, Law Clerk, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, D.C. 

6 

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

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

10 DENIED. 

11 Petitioner Jiang Yun, a native and citizen of China, seeks 

12 review of a September 10, 2014 decision of the BIA affirming 

13 a January 23, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

14 denying Yun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

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

16 re Jiang Yun, No. 087 531 701 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2014), aff’g

17 No. A087 531 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 23, 2013). We assume 

18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

19 procedural history in this case. 

20 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the 

21 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

22 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 

23 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
3

1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 

2 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

3 For asylum applications such as Yun’s, governed by the REAL 

4 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the 

5 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum 

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

7 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her 

8 statements and evidence, so long as they reasonably support an 

9 inference that the applicant is not credible. 8 U.S.C. 

10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 

11 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We defer “to an IJ’s 

12 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 

13 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 

14 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 

15 at 167. 

16 The agency based its adverse credibility determination on 

17 inconsistencies in Yun’s testimony and evidence regarding when 

18 she became pregnant and was allegedly subjected to a forced 

19 abortion. Because Yun’s inconsistent testimony relates to the 

20 heart of her claim for asylum, and she did not rehabilitate that 

21 inconsistent testimony with corroborating evidence, 
4

1 substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 

2 determination, based on a totality of the circumstances. See 

3 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 

4 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

5 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, because the only 

6 evidence of a threat to Yun’s life or freedom depended upon her 

7 credibility, the agency’s finding that she was not credible 

8 necessarily precludes success on her claims for asylum, 

9 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 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