12-1095 Zhang v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A089 913 177 

### 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 Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 4 th** **day of June, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **QIANG ZHANG,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-1095** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General; Allen W. Hausman,** 26 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Christina** 27 **Bechak Parascandola, Trial Attorney,** 28 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 29 **United States Department of Justice,** 30 **Washington, D.C.** 31UPON 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 Qiang Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 27, 2012, 6 decision of the BIA affirming the February 4, 2010, decision 7 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qiang 10 Zhang, No. A089 913 177 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2012),aff’gNo. 11 A089 913 177 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 4, 2010). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have 15 considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 16 sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 17 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are 18 well-established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also 19 Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 For asylum applications, such as Zhang’s, governed by 21 the amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act 22 by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the 23

2totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on 1 any inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements, without 2 regard to whether the inconsistencies go “to the heart of 3 the applicant’s claim.” See8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 4 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) 5 (per curiam). Zhang challenges only the agency’s denial of 6 relief based on its adverse credibility determination, and 7 does not contest the agency’s finding that he failed to 8 corroborate his claims. 9 Zhang claimed that he was arrested, detained, beaten 10 and ultimately hospitalized, because of his participation in 11 an underground house church in China. Contrary to Zhang’s 12 contention, the agency reasonably found that his testimony 13 was incredible, in part, because he testified that he was 14 unable to leave the hospital from December 29, 2007, until 15 January 22, 2008, but later testified that the doctors 16 “allow[ed him] to be discharged” on January 10, 2008. Xiu 17 Xia Lin , 534 F. at 167. Zhang’s explanation for this 18 discrepancy – his brief outing may not have been noticed by 19 the rest of the hospital staff – is insufficient, even if 20 plausible, to compel the conclusion that his testimony was 21 credible, given that his testimony was also inconsistent 22

3with his asylum application, which omitted reference to a 1 discharge, as well as a hospital record he submitted which 2 indicated only that he was discharged on January 22, 2008. 3 See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) 4 (finding that a petitioner “must do more than offer a 5 plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 6 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact7 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” 8 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and 9 citations omitted)). Similarly, Zhang’s contention that 10 there are plausible explanations for the inconsistent 11 testimony of his only witness does not compel reversal. Id. 12 As the only evidence of a threat to Zhang’s life or 13 freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse 14 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes 15 success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, 16 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d 17 Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 18 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005). 19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 22

4is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 5
FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7

5