1 9

- 2624 Ye v. Garland BIA Poczter , IJ A20 8 921 347 

### 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** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall**  2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 16**  **th day of**  **August , two thousand**  **twenty**

  4
** one**
**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **JIN HUI YE ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 1**  **9**

**- 2624**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,**  20 **R espondent** 

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER:** Gary J. Yerman , Esq., New York , 24 N Y

. 25 262 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant 1 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman 2 Kelting , Assistant Director ; 3 Christopher Buchanan , Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration 5 Litigation , United States 6 Department of Justice, Washington, 7 DC. 8 9 U PON DUE CONSIDE RATION , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 10

AND DECREED that th is petitio n for review of a decision of 11

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. 12

Petitioner Jin Hui Ye , a native and citizen of the 13
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n August 1 , 201 9 14
decision of the BIA affirming a January 16 , 201 8 decision of 15

an I mmigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 16
asylum , withholding of removal , and relief under the 17
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Jin Hui Ye , No. 18

A 20 8 921 347 (B.I.A. Aug

. 1 , 201 9 ), aff’g No. A 20 8 921 347 19
(Immig. Ct. N

. Y. C. Jan

. 16 , 201 8 ). We assume the parties’ 20
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural his tory. 21

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 22

See Wa la v. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 102 , 105 (2d Cir. 200 7 ) . The 23
applicable standards of review are well established. See 24

8 U.S.C. § 125 2(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 25

67 , 76 (2d Cir. 201 8 ). 26
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 273 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 1

determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 2
the applicant . . . , the consistency between the applicant’s 3

. . . written and ora l statements . . . , the internal 4
consistency of each such statement , [and] the consistency of 5

such statements with other evidence of record

. . . without 6
regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 7
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other 8

relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer 9

. . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the 10
totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 11

fact

- finder could make such an adverse cr edibility ruling.” 12
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); 13
accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence 14
supports the agency’s determination that Ye was not credible 15

as to his claim that police detained and beat him for 16

prac ticing Christianity in an un registered church in China. 17
The agency reasonably relied on Ye’s unresponsive and 18
scripted demeanor. On direct examination, Ye’s attorney 19
frequently had to ask repetitive or leading questions to 20
elicit responsive answers about Ye’s Christian practice. 21
This supports the IJ’s demeanor finding, which we afford 224 particular deference. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 1

81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 2
The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistent 3

statements about who introduced Ye to Ch ristianity and paid 4

a fine for his release

. See Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 5

145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might 6
preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to 7
find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude 8
even more forcefully.”). First, Ye’s a pplication identified 9

one coworker who invited him to attend churc h, but he 10

testified about two. The IJ was not required to credit Ye’s 11
explanation that he was in a fight with the second because Ye 12

submitted an affidavit from that second individual

. See 13
Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80 (“A petitioner must do more than offer 14
a pl ausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 15

secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

16

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 17
quotation marks omitted)). Second, Y e testified that his 18
brother paid the fine t o secure his release from jail ; but 19

his brother’s affidavit stat ed that Ye paid the fine. Ye had 20
no explanation for this inconsistency. Th e lack of reliable 21
corroboration further undermined Ye’s credibility

. See Y.C. 225 v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“ W e generally 1
defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded 2
an applicant’s documentary evidence

. ” ); Biao Yang v. 3

Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) ( “An applicant’s 4
failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on 5
credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general 6
makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has 7
already been called into question.” )

. 8

Given these inconsistencies and the demeanor finding , 9
substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility 10

determination , which is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 11
removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on 12
the same factual predicate of Ye’s alleged beating and 13
detention for attending an unregistered church

. See Paul v. 14

Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

- 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 15
Nevertheless, the IJ assumed in the alternative that Ye 16
was seeking relief based on a well

- founded fear of future 17
persecution on account of his practice of Christianity in the 18

United States. The IJ reason ably rejected such a claim 19
because Ye did not provide evidence that Chinese authorities 20
were aware of, or were likely to become aware of, his 21
Christian practice in the United States. See Hongsheng Leng 226 v. Mukasey , 528 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2008). And t h e IJ 1
reasonably rejected a claim of a pattern or practice of 2
persecution of Christians because Ye’s supporting evidence

— a 3
State Department report and six news articles

— did not 4
establish heightened restrictions for Christians in his home 5
province. See Sant oso v. Holder , 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d 6

Cir. 2009); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 149

– 50 , 7

169

– 70 (2d Cir. 2008). 8
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9

DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 10

stays VACATED. 11

FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 13 Clerk of Court 14 15