17-1490 

Zhang v. Whitaker 

BIA 

Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ 

A087 986 601

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 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 22nd 4 day of January, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 JIANZHI ZHANG, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-1490 

17 NAC 

18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 

19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Jianzhi Zhang, pro se, Far 

24 Rockaway, NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 

28 Senior Litigation Counsel; John M. 

29 McAdams, Jr., Attorney, Office of 

30 Immigration Litigation, United 

31 States Department of Justice, 

32 Washington, DC. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

4 is DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Jianzhi Zhang, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12, 2017, 

7 decision of the BIA affirming an August 4, 2016, decision of 

8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for 

9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianzhi Zhang, No. 

11 A 087 986 601 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 986 601

12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ 

13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

14 in this case. 

15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 

16 the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). 

17 We review adverse credibility determinations under a 

18 substantial evidence standard. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 

19 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 

20 totality of the circumstances, . . . a trier of fact may base 

21 a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 

22 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements 

23 . . . the internal consistency of each such statement, the 
3

1 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 

2 . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements 

3 . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to 

4 an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain 

5 that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 

6 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. As 

7 discussed below, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

8 determination that Zhang was not credible. 

9 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies 

10 between Zhang’s testimony and application regarding the 

11 events in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 

12 Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67. His statements were inconsistent 

13 as to the length of his interrogation during the initial 

14 arrest, the period of time that passed between his first and 

15 second arrests, and whether he and his wife began their bible 

16 study group before or after the university officials warned 

17 them not to proselytize on campus.1 The IJ was not compelled 

18 to accept Zhang’s explanation that the passage of time 

19 affected his memory of the events given the level of detail 

 

1 Although we agree with Zhang that the IJ erred in finding an 

inconsistency between Zhang’s testimony and application regarding 

the government-sanctioned church he attended in China, the error 

does not require remand given the other inconsistencies. See

Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2016). 
4

1 and specific dates he included in his application. See

2 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 

3 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 

4 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

5 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

6 to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). 

7 The inconsistencies between Zhang’s and his wife’s 

8 testimony regarding whether he was arrested in China and 

9 whether he attended church in the United States further 

10 support the agency’s determination that Zhang was not 

11 credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Zhang’s 

12 wife’s testimony that Zhang was never arrested in China 

13 directly contradicts the main basis of Zhang’s claim of past 

14 persecution. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 

15 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) (even one material inconsistency 

16 may provide substantial evidence for adverse credibility 

17 determination). The agency was not compelled to accept 

18 Zhang’s explanation that his wife meant only that he was never 

19 arrested for criminal activity because Zhang’s wife 

20 specifically denied that Zhang was ever arrested while 

21 teaching on campus or for hosting the bible study sessions, 

22 see Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81. Zhang has provided no support 

23 for his allegation that his wife’s testimony was 
5

1 misinterpreted, in that he has not identified any errors and 

2 his wife stated that she understood the interpreter. 

3 The agency also reasonably relied on discrepancies 

4 regarding Zhang’s New York church attendance. See 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Zhang’s failure to attend church in 

6 the United States called into question whether he was a 

7 practicing Christian and undermined his allegations that he 

8 risked arrest to practice Christianity in China. See Wensheng 

9 Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (“It is well 

10 settled that, in assessing the credibility of an asylum 

11 applicant’s testimony, an IJ is entitled to consider whether 

12 the applicant’s story is inherently implausible.”); Siewe v. 

13 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false 

14 document or a single instance of false testimony may (if 

15 attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the 

16 alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). 

17 We have considered Zhang’s remaining arguments and 

18 determine that they lack merit. Given the inconsistencies 

19 among Zhang’s application, his testimony, and his wife’s 

20 testimony regarding both events in china and his practice of 

21 Christianity in the United States, the totality of the 

22 circumstances supports the adverse credibility ruling. See 

23 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; 
6

1 Xian Tuan Ye, 446 F.3d at 295. Because all of Zhang’s claims 

2 were based on the same factual predicate, the adverse 

3 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 

4 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 

5 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Zhang’s motion to 

8 expedite ruling on the petition is DENIED as moot. Any 

9 pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED 

10 in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

11 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 

12 FOR THE COURT: 

13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

14 Clerk of Court