20

- 1527 Fang v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A 088 347 494 

### 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 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 Thu**  **rgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 8**  **t h**  **d a**  **y of N**  **o v**  **e m**  **b e**  **r , two thousand**  **twenty**

**- two.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON ,**  7 **C hief**  **Judge ,**  8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  9 **EUNICE C. LEE ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **J IAN**  **Z HOU**  **F ANG,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 1527**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Robert Tsigler , Law Offices of 24 Robert Tsigler , PLLC, New York, 25 NY

. 262 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General ; Cindy S. 2 Ferrier, Assistant Director ; 3 Michelle Y.F. Sarko , Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 Civil Division, United States 6 Department of Justice, Washington, 7 D C. 8

**UPON DUE CONSIDERATION** of this petition for review of a 9
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10

**ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED** that the petitio n for review 11

is **DENIED**

. 12

Petitioner Jian Zhou Fang , a native and citizen of the 13
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n April 22, 2020 , 14

decision of the BIA affirming a June 18, 2018, decision of an 15
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17
Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Jian Zhou Fang , No. A 088

- 18

347

- 494 (B.I.A. Apr

. 22, 2020 ), aff’g No. A 088

- 347

- 494 (Immig. 19

Ct. N.Y. C. June 18, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ 20
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21

Under the circumstances , we have reviewed both the IJ’s 22

and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse 24
credibility determinations under a substantial evidence 253 standard, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 1
Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s fact

- finding as 2

“ conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3
compelled to conclu de to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 4

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the 5
circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 6
base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 7
between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 8

st atements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 9

statement , [and] t he consistency of such statements with 10

other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether an 11
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 12
the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 13

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer . . . to an IJ’s 14
credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 15
circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder 16
could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin 17
v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) ; accord Hong Fei 18

Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Here, s ubstantial evidence supports the 19
agency’s determination that Fang was not credible as to his 20

claim that he and his family were persecuted for practicing 214 Christianity

. 1
The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies 2

in Fang’s statements and betwee n his statements and other 3

evidence. The record reveals inconsistent testimony 4
regarding the year Fang began practicing Christianity, the 5
number of times his father has been arrested, whether his 6
younger brother was arreste d , whether his mother was still 7
required to report regularly to the police following her 8

arrest for attending an un registered church , and whether the 9
police came looking for Fang at his mother’s house as recently 10
as a month prior to his merits hearing in 2018

. The agency 11
was not required to accept Fang’s explanations for these 12

inconsistencies because they either did not resolve the 13
discrepancies or were based on unsupported allegations of 14

translation error. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 15

(2d Cir. 20 05) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a 16
plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 17

secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact

18

finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” ( internal 19
quotation marks omitted) )

. The inconsistencies provide 20
substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 215 determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Gao v. 1

Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single 2
inconsistency might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ 3
was compelled to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies 4
would so preclude even more forcefully.”). 5
The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of 6
Fang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 7

relief because all three claims were based on the same factual 8
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d 9

Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we do not reach the agency’s 10
alternative grounds for denying relief. See INS v. 11
Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ( “ As a general rule, courts 12
and agencies are not required to make findings on issue s . . . 13
unnecessary to the results they reach.” ). 14
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 16

stays VACATED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 19 Clerk of Court 20