20

- 1602 Wang v. Garland BIA Cassin , IJ A 202 040 172 

### 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 A NY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on th e 20 th da y of July , two thousand tw enty

3 two

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GUIDO CALABRESI, 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 X IAO Y U W ANG , 13 Petitioner, 14 15

v. No. 20

- 1602 16 NAC 17 M ERRICK B. G ARLAND , U NITED S TATES 18 A TTORNEY G ENERAL , 19 R espondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 212 1 FOR PETITIONER : Vlad Kuzmin , Kuzmin & Associates, 2 P.C., New York , NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT : Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Zoe J. Heller , Senior Litigation 6 Counsel ; Karen L. Melnik , Trial Attorney , 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 11 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 13

AND DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 14

Petitioner Xiao Yu Wang , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 15

China , seeks rev iew of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an I mmigration 16
Judge (“IJ”) d enying Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 17
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiao Yu Wang , No. 18

A 202 040 172 (B.I.A. Apr. 20 , 2020 ), aff’g No. A 202 040 172 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 19
May 3 , 2018 ). We assume the parties’ famili arity with the underlying facts and 20
procedural history. 21

“ When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopt[s] the IJ ’ s 22
reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ ’ s and the BIA ’ s decisions together. ” 23
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation 243 marks omitted)

. The agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility 1

determinations, are reviewed “ under the substantial evidence standard, ” Hong Fei 2

Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) , which entails deeming the agency’s 3
findings of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 4
compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. “Considering 5
the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 6
credibility determination on

. . . the consistency between the applicant’s or 7

witness’s written and oral statements

. . . , the internal consistency of each such 8

statement

. . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without 9
regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 10
the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 11
Substantial evidence supports the age ncy’s determination that Wang was not 12

credible as to her claim that she has been persecuted in China on account of her 13

Catholic faith

. 14
The agency reasonably relied on Wang’s inconsistent evidence regarding 15
the abuse she purportedly suffered during that detention, the conditions of her 16

release, and whether she attended classes at her church. See id. ; see also Likai Gao 17

v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E] ven a single inconsistency might 184 preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. 1
Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more forcefully.”). Wang did 2
not compellingly explain these inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gon zales , 430 F.3d 77, 3
80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation 4

for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a 5

reasonable fact

- finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” ) (quotatio n 6

marks omitted). 7
The agency also reasonably relied on Wang’s inability to describe her 8
religious practice in any detail , name any B ible story, or name the bishop at her 9
church despite having attended church weekly for two years in China and four 10
years in the United States. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) . Wang argues that 11
reliance on knowledge of religious doctrine is improper, ci ting our decision in 12

Rizal v. Gonzales , 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006). In that case, we explained that 13

there is no minimum “ level of doctrinal knowledge” that an applicant must have 14
“to be eligible for asylum on grounds of religious persecution.” Id. W e also 15
acknowledged, however, that there are circumstances where “questions about 16
religious doctrine are

. . . relevant in assessing an asylum applicant’s credibility in 17
claiming religious persecution,” such as if the applicant “claim[ed] to have been a 185 te acher of, or expert in, the religion in question.” Id. Al hough Wang does not 1
claim to be an expert in Catholicism , she does claim to have attended Mass weekly, 2
an assertion that the IJ was entitled to be skeptical of in light of her inability to 3
recall a single Bible story, the name of the bishop overseeing her church, or even 4
anything about the homily that she had h eard the Sunday prior to her testimony. 5
The IJ was not imposing a doctrinal

- knowledge requirement on Wang, but rather 6
“wonder[ing]” in light of her “spare testimony

. . . whether the testimony is 7
fabricated,” and “prob[ing] for incidental details.” Jin S hui Qiu v. Ashcroft , 329 8
F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. 9
Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc)

. 10
Finally, t he agency reasonably relied on Wang’s failure to rehabilitate her 11

cr edibility with reliable evidence corroborating her church attendance in China or 12

the United States. As Wang points out, corroboration is not strictly necessary for 13
an asylum claim to be adjudged credible, but “the general rule is that such 14
evidence should be presented where available.” Matter of Das , 20 I. & N. Dec. 120, 15
124 (B.I.A. 1989). In particula r, where, as here, an applicant’s testimony exposes 16
credibility issues, “ the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant 17

unable to rehabilitate [the] testimony that has already been called into question.” 186 Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 27 3 (2d Cir. 2007)

. Wang objects that the IJ 1
should have granted a continuance to allow her to obtain letters from her family 2

in China that would have corroborated her church attendance , but this case had 3
been pending for years by the time the IJ conducted the hearing in April 2018, and 4
even though the government had been considering closing the case in its 5
prosecutorial discretion, it had notified Wang’s counsel more than two months 6
before the hearing that the case would proceed to a merits hearing. The IJ 7
permissibly decided that this was adequate time for Wang to prepare whatever 8
corroborating evidence she wished to submit and t hat a continuance was 9

unwarranted

. 10
We have considered Wang’s remaining arguments and found them to be 11

without merit. Given the inconsistencies , lack of details, and lack of 12

corroboration that pervade this case , the agency’s adverse credibility 13
determination is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 14
§ § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) , 1252(b)(4)(B) ; Likai Gao , 968 F.3d at 145 n.8

. That 15

determination i s dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 16

because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate

. See Paul v. 17

Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 187 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED . All pending 1
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED

. 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 4 Clerk of Court 5 6