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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **5 th**  **day of October, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 Chief Judge **,** 8 **RICHARD C. WESLEY,** 9 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 10 Circuit Judges. 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **JIANG YUN,** 14 Petitioner **,** 15 16 **v. 14-3763** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**_____________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER:** Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Steven 28 J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Arthur 292 Rabin, Trial Attorney; Lindsay G. 1 Donahue, Law Clerk, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9

DENIED. 10 Petitioner Jiang Yun, a native and citizen of China, seeks 11 review of a September 10, 2014 decision of the BIA affirming 12 a January 23, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 denying Yun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 14 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 15 re Jiang Yun, No. 087 531 701 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2014), aff’g 16

No. A087 531 701 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 23, 2013). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the 20 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 21 Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). 22 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 233 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 1 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 For asylum applications such as Yun’s, governed by the REAL 3 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the totality of the 4 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum 5 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 6 plausibility of her account, and inconsistencies in her 7 statements and evidence, so long as they reasonably support an 8 inference that the applicant is not credible. 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 10 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We defer “to an IJ’s 11 credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 12 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 13

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

at 167. 15 The agency based its adverse credibility determination on 16 inconsistencies in Yun’s testimony and evidence regarding when 17 she became pregnant and was allegedly subjected to a forced 18 abortion. Because Yun’s inconsistent testimony relates to the 19 heart of her claim for asylum, and she did not rehabilitate that 20 inconsistent testimony with corroborating evidence, 214 substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 1 determination, based on a totality of the circumstances. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 3 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007); Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 4 446 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, because the only 5 evidence of a threat to Yun’s l ife or freedom depended upon her 6 credibility, the agency’s finding that she was not credible 7 necessarily precludes success on her claims for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 9 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 17 34.1(b). 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 20