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.**  **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 22 nd**  **day of January, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JIANZHI ZHANG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 17-1490** 16 **NAC** 17 **MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Jianzhi Zhang, pro se, Far 23 Rockaway, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; John M. 28 McAdams, Jr., Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Jianzhi Zhang, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 12, 2017, 6 decision of the BIA affirming an August 4, 2016, decision of 7 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zhang’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jianzhi Zhang, No. 10

A 087 986 601 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 986 601 11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ 12 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 13 in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 15

the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). 16 We review adverse credibility determinations under a 17 substantial evidence standard. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 18 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 19 totality of the circumstances, . . . a trier of fact may base 20 a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 21 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements 22 . . . the internal consistency of each such statement, the 233 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 1 . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements 2 . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to 3 an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain 4 that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse 5 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. As 6 discussed below, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 7 determination that Zhang was not credible. 8 The agency reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies 9 between Zhang’s testimony and application regarding the 10 events in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 11 Lin , 534 F.3d at 166-67. His statements were inconsistent 12 as to the length of his interrogation during the initial 13 arrest, the period of time that passed between his first and 14 second arrests, and whether he and his wife began their bible 15 study group before or after the university officials warned 16 them not to proselytize on campus. 1 The IJ was not compelled 17 to accept Zhang’s explanation that the passage of time 18 affected his memory of the events given the level of detail 19

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 and specific dates he included in his application. See 1 Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 2 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 3 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 4 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 5 to credit his testimony.” (quotation marks omitted)). 6 The inconsistencies between Zha ng’s and his wife’s 7 testimony regarding whether he was arrested in China and 8 whether he attended church in the United States further 9 support the agency’s determination that Zhang was not 10 credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Zhang’s 11 wife’s testimony that Zhang was never arrested in China 12 directly contradicts the main basis of Zhang’s claim of past 13 persecution. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 446 14 F.3d 289, 295 (2d Cir. 2006) ( even one material inconsistency 15 may provide substantial evidence for adverse credibility 16 determination). The agency was not compelled to accept 17 Zhang’s explanation that his wife meant only that he was never 18 arrested for criminal activity because Zhang’s wife 19 specifically denied that Zhang was ever arrested while 20 teaching on campus or for hosting the bible study sessions, 21

see Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80-81. Zhang has provided no support 22 for his allegation that his wife’s testimony was 235 misinterpreted, in that he has not identified any errors and 1 his wife stated that she understood the interpreter. 2 The agency also re asonably relied on discrepancies 3 regarding Zhang’s New York church attendance. See 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Zhang’s failure to attend church in 5 the United States called into question whether he was a 6 practicing Christian and undermined his allegations that he 7 risked arrest to practice Christianity in China. See Wensheng 8 Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (“It is well 9 settled that, in assessing the credibility of an asylum 10 applicant’s testimony, an IJ is entitled to consider whether 11 the applicant’s story is inherently implausible.”); Siewe v. 12

Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A] single false 13 document or a single instance of false testimony may (if 14 attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the 15 alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). 16 We have considered Zhang’s remaining arguments and 17 determine that they lack merit. Given the inconsistencies 18 among Zhang’s application, his testimony, and his wife’s 19 testimony regarding both events in china and his practice of 20 Christianity in the United States, the totality of the 21 circumstances supports the adverse credibility ruling. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167; 236 Xian Tuan Ye , 446 F.3d at 295. Because all of Zhang’s claims 1 were based on the same factual predicate, the adverse 2 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 3 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales , 4 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Zhang’s motion to 7 expedite ruling on the petition is DENIED as moot. Any 8 pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED 9 in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 11

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